Upload
vunhi
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
FIGHTING TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX BY MAKING
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A SUCCESS
A Synthesis Project Presented
by
DAVID FRIAS
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2007
Critical and Creative Thinking Program
FIGHTING TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX BY MAKING
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A SUCCESS
A Synthesis Project Presented
by
DAVID FRIAS
Approved as to style and content by: ________________________________________ Peter J. Taylor, Professor Chairperson of Committee ________________________________________ Carol Smith, Associate Professor Member
__________________________________________ Peter J. Taylor, Program Coordinator Critical and Creative Thinking Program
ABSTRACT
FIGHTING TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX BY MAKING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A SUCCESS
May 2007
David Frias, B.A., Boston University M.A., University of Massachusetts Boston
Directed by Professor Peter J. Taylor
The past two years in the Critical and Creative Thinking Graduate Program have been a
time of learning and life changing experiences. I found the confidence to make a career change
and gained the knowledge and tools necessary to study the complex problem of traffic
congestion and attempt to solve it by utilizing public transportation. My plan to move to
Phoenix, Arizona in 2009 motivated me not only to learn about the area and its attempts to fight
urban sprawl and traffic congestion, but also to attempt to find solutions to these problems. I
utilized creative thinking and critical thinking skills to understand the complexity of the problem,
analyze the problem, and make suggestions that could help solve the problem.
This synthesis project explores the rise of urban sprawl due to federal, state, and local
policies regarding urban planning, and how urban sprawl led to a decline of public transportation
usage and an increase in automobile dependence which in turn spawned traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion problems have led to a loss of economic productivity, increased pollution,
increased dependence on foreign oil, and the rise of health issues across America. By studying
the current solutions being attempted across the United States and in Phoenix, I was able to
understand what is working, what isn’t, and why. Utilizing my critical thinking skills and
creativity, I make suggestions on how Metropolitan Phoenix can reduce traffic congestion by
promoting public transportation and making it a success. These suggestions attempt to make
public transportation a success in the area by using smart growth in urban planning, improving
the existing transit system and ensuring future success, as well as instituting fee structures that
will discourage citizens from utilizing the automobile as often as they do. The solutions I
propose would involve the cooperation of federal, state, local officials as well as private
business, and ultimately, the individual citizen. Undertaking this synthesis project not only
educated me on the issues at hand, but I hope the product will educate the reader on the
complexity of the problem and motivate them to become involved in trying to solve it.
I dedicate this synthesis project to
my family, partner, and friends who
have always supported me in all my
endeavors. You all have given me
the strength to succeed.
Thank You
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………..…………. vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………. 1 CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM..……. 6
Rise of Urban Sprawl…………………………………………………………..... 6 Urban Sprawl Side Effects………………………………………………………. 11 Traffic Congestion……….………………………………………………………. 14 CHAPTER 3: WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIX THE PROBLEM…………………... 19 Using Urban Development………………………………………………………. 21 Using Public Transportation…………………………………………………...... 25 Organizations Taking Up the Cause…………………………………………….. 30 CHAPTER 4: A LOOK AT METROPOLIAN PHOENIX, ARIZONA……………….. 33 Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona………………………………………………….. 33 Phoenix’s General Plan: A Critical Look………………………………………... 38 Phoenix’s Public Transportation Plan: A Critical Look…………………….…... 43 CHAPTER 5: HOW TO MAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A SUCCESS……… 49 Using Smart Urban Planning and Development………………………………… 50 Improving Public Transportation………………………………………………... 62 Other Ideas to Increase Public Transportation Usage…………………………… 73 Other Suggestions……………………………………………………………….. 82 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION, REFLECTIONS, AND AN EYE TOWARDS THE
FUTURE………………………………………………………………… 84 Reflection on Synthesis Project…………………………………………………. 86 Reflection on the Critical and Creative Thinking Program……………………… 90 A Look towards the Future…………………………………………………….… 93 APPENDICES…………………………………………..………………………………… 96 Appendix A: Map of Metropolitan Phoenix……………………………....……… 97 Appendix B: General Plan Overview..…………………………………………… 98 Appendix C: METRO Light Rail Planned Route …………………...…………… 99 Appendix D: METRO Light Rail Future Extensions………………………….. 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………..…….. 101
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
On a recent trip to Scotland in January 2007 to visit a friend getting a masters in
environmental sciences at the University of Edinburgh, I became very interested in trying
to get Americans to start using public transportation and depend less on their cars. We
had an amazing discussion on how Americans can help save the environment and help
fight global warming by simply using public transportation and reducing the amount of
carbon dioxide released into the air. This discussion and my decision to move to Phoenix
led us to also discuss the dismal state of most public transportation systems in American
cities, especially those with low densities such as Phoenix. Before I knew it, these simple
topics led to a great dialogue between the two of us for over three hours.
Looking back at the discussion with my friend, I find myself laughing on the
inside as I realize that I am always evolving and changing my mind as I learn new things.
I was originally a graduate student at the Boston Architectural College and planned to
stay working at the architectural firm I was employed in, but as I began to have difficulty
with my design ideas, I decided to join the Critical and Creative Thinking Program in an
attempt to be more creative. I originally intended to only enroll in the certificate CCT
Program, but as I progressed through the classes, I began to realize that I should follow
my true passions career-wise and decided that I should go into real estate development. I
even switched my original synthesis idea of finding a way for urban renewal without it
leading to full gentrification, which I still feel would help me be a great real-estate
developer. Although I am still interested in that idea, my dialogue with my friend made
2
me change my mind as I realized the gravity of the problem of urban sprawl and traffic
congestion.
Most metropolitan areas in America tend to suffer from urban sprawl and traffic
congestion. Urban sprawl is the mostly uncontrolled low density growth around an urban
area, creating the byproduct of traffic congestion (Arapkiles et al, 1998). It is very
evident in cities such as Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and many
others all across the United States. Cities located in the West are great examples because
they are fairly new cities, and are located in areas that have ample space to spread
outward from their urban centers. These metropolitan areas are now working on
addressing their urban sprawl and traffic congestion problems by using various methods
such as urban growth boundaries, transit-oriented development, and the promotion of
public transportation.
The success of public transportation in metropolitan areas such as Phoenix is quite
difficult due to low density, and because most American cities are designed to be
automobile dependant. Low density and traffic congestion, byproducts of urban sprawl,
were the result of federal, state, and local laws concerning urban planning and
development. The fact that American’s love their cars and usually choose not to ride
public transportation given the choice is another major reason for the continued problem
of traffic congestion. These are great issues that must be overcome and I look forward to
not only understanding them, but finding solutions by synthesizing what I have learned
not only in the Critical and Creative Thinking Program, but as well as my eight years of
living, working, and attending school in Boston.
3
In trying to understand the complexity of the urban sprawl and traffic congestion
that plague most American cities, I began by looking at the history of their creation. I
then explored the reasons why these problems and the various players are dependent on
one another and why not just one player can solve the traffic congestion problem. Once I
felt I understood the issue and its complexity, I took a look at Metropolitan Phoenix in
Arizona and analyzed their current situation by studying what the city is currently
attempting to do in order to solve their urban sprawl and traffic congestion problems.
Believing that public transportation is one of the most important answers to this problem,
I took a look at their current and future urban planning and transportation plans to see
how effective they are. I point out what I think they are doing correctly and what they
could do differently in order to ensure that public transportation is a success in Phoenix.
I drew from examples of other cities, as well as from ideas from peers and my own
opinions to come up with the ideas that might help Metropolitan Phoenix combat traffic
congestion by making public transportation a success.
Understanding that there have been thousands of people trying to solve this issue
all across America, and even in Phoenix, I believe that the Critical and Creative Program
has given me the tools to approach this problem with a different point of view. Having
lived in Boston and seeing how great public transportation can be in reducing traffic, I
utilized my ‘East Cost’ point of view to look at the problems that Metropolitan Phoenix
faces from a different angle. I utilized critical thinking techniques for various reasons.
They helped me understand the complexity of the program by allowing me to put the
problem into perspective and to understand how one variable greatly affected another.
Upon learning to understand the complexity of the issues, I used critical thinking to help
4
me analyze the different methods already being attempted, and to be critical of the ideas I
came up with to help solve this problem. I held and facilitated a dialogue session with
peers to get an understanding of why people are hesitant to give up their cars and use
public transportation; something I learned to do in my dialogue class. Lastly, after
having analyzed the information gathered, I ultimately used what I learned in my creative
thinking course to aid me in coming up with a new combination of solutions that I feel
could help Metropolitan Phoenix tackle urban sprawl and make public transportation
convenient and attractive to its citizens.
It is my hope that many people in the city of Phoenix can benefit from this
synthesis project as much as I will. State and city governments in Arizona and the
Maricopa County can use the information I gathered and my point of view in order to
supplement their future plans for the area. I also hope that ordinary people will realize
the benefits of using public transportation and the need to abandon their cars as well as
what should be done in order to make public transportation a success. It is my hope that
with my synthesis and general information the public knows about global warming, they
will realize the benefits of public transportation in reducing pollution, and why it’s
important that it succeeds in Phoenix. Hopefully my project will inspire people to begin
changing their driving habits and create momentum that will inspire the federal
government to promote public transportation over automobiles, which in turn will reduce
traffic and greatly help the environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
My synthesis is formatted in a manner that will allow you, the reader, to
understand the complexity of the problem of urban sprawl and traffic congestion as well
as solutions currently proposed and being utilized by municipalities all across the
5
country. In Chapter 2 I explain the complexity of the problem and in Chapter 3 I discuss
what is currently being done by communities in order to fight urban sprawl and traffic
congestion. Chapter 4 will introduce the Greater Phoenix area and the current status of
its public transportation and urban planning plans. Chapter 5 will explore the wide array
of solutions that I suggest the City of Phoenix, in conjunction with the other communities
in the area, could implement in order to stem urban growth and in turn make public
transportation a more attractive and convenient alternative to the automobile. My
suggestions range from utilizing urban planning and development, improving the
transportation system itself, to a few more drastic measures such as creating toll roads
and raising some taxes. In my opinion, once public transportation is made a success, it
will ultimately lead to the reduction of traffic congestion. The last chapter, Chapter 6,
will be a reflection on the creation of the synthesis project as well as my time in the
Critical and Creative Thinking Program. I will close this chapter with an eye towards the
future.
6
CHAPTER 2
UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM
In this chapter I will explore the rise of urban sprawl and how it came to be. This
chapter will explain how the factors that created urban sprawl led to the rise and the
dependence on the automobile in American cities. This dependence in conjunction with
bad urban planning led to the rise of traffic congestion. Once this issue was realized to be
a problem prevalent all across America, cities began to address it through various means.
Urban planning and zoning that were once part of the problem have become part of the
solution. Cities are now advocating smart growth as well as the promotion of public
transportation which had been in decline as the automobile became the transportation
method of choice.
Rise of Urban Sprawl
One of the major problems facing most metropolitan areas in the United States is
that of urban sprawl, which has created a greater need for the use of the automobile, made
public transportation unviable in most areas, and has led to the problem of traffic
congestion and increase of carbon emissions by Americans. How did it begin? Why did
it begin? In the following section, I will describe how urban sprawl came about and why
it spawned the problem of traffic congestion.
Federal programs such as the interstate highway which allowed cities to continue
to grow, the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance and other mortgage
7
programs, grant-in-aid programs for sewage and waste water treatment plants, influenced
growth patterns and facilitated the development of areas that normally would not have
been considered. These programs made it easier for state and local governments and
developers to keep expanding from the historical centers of urban areas that led to an
extravagant rate of land consumption that exceeds the rate at which the number of
households being built can be sustained by metropolitan areas (Barnett, 2001). Federal
highway programs which began to fully implement the Interstate Highway System, were
beginning to take hold in the 1950s. As the federal government continued to fund these
projects, cities were able to build the highways leading away from the city centers and
out into suburban areas that would soon become America’s suburbs (Barnett, 2001).
Major contributors to the rise of urban sprawl were the policies of the Home
Owner Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration in the 1930s and
1940s. These policies effectively red-lined urban areas where African Americans and
low income families lived, making them ineligible for federal mortgage insurance which
favored lower middle class and more affluent, white citizens. This resulted in white
families being induced to move to newer suburban areas, further fueling urban sprawl
growth, and leaving minorities and the poor to stay in urban centers (Barnett, 2001). By
1975, 75% of all CEOs of New York City based companies lived outside the city,
ensuring that the wealthy were becoming further insulated from the poor (Madsen, 2001).
My sister-in-law, who is originally from Detroit, Michigan, tells stories of how she is
amazed when she goes back home to see how much downtown Detroit is full of
minorities and the poor while the suburbs are full of mostly Caucasian wealthy and
middle class individuals. These government policies became a complex mix of billions
8
of dollars in subsidies and poor federal, state, and local planning policies that encouraged
urban sprawl (“Population Growth and…” n.d.).
Housing policies weren’t the only factors that affected urban sprawl. A major
factor was that of state and city zoning laws, which designate what type of usage is
permitted in sectioned parcels of land. The laws divided the cities into residential,
industrial, and commercial districts, thus dictating what type of structures could be built.
These created islands of such specific land use, that an automobile was required to get
past the vast residential tracts of land that intersected one commercial and/or industrial
space from another (“Mixed-use Development,” 2006). Zoning laws (called Euclidian
Zoning Laws) first began as a response to the intrusion of industry into cities, and the
invention of tall buildings at the turn of the 20th century. New York City was the first
city to enact Euclidian Zoning Laws in 1916 which not only limited building heights, but
also separated incompatible activities such as keeping residences away from the noisy
and dirty factories, and protecting neighborhood properties from big buildings that would
block out the light from the sun. At the time of their inception, nobody imagined that
urbanization would soon spill out of the cities and towns covering up whole metropolitan
areas (Barnett, 2001 & “Mixed-use Development,” 2006).
Zoning was the sole shaping force for most regional development. While it does
make sense to separate industry from housing, it has made the metropolitan regions of
America far more fragmented and discontinuous than they should be (Barnett, 2001). As
metropolitan areas spread, services such as hospital, schools, shopping centers, and others
were duplicated while the existing urban ones went underutilized. This type of growth
also led to most customer service oriented type of services such as financial, educational
9
(University), and others to be located in the historical center of a city while most
manufacturing type services such as textiles and other factory type services to move to
the outer portions of metropolitan areas in order to avoid residential areas and for the
cheaper newly available land (Madsen, 2001).
The automobile became the primary means of transportation as urban sprawl
continued to grow due to population growth. The declining of the real costs of gasoline,
and the fact that Americans had fallen in love with the automobile and the freedoms it
provided, led to a decline in community life, an increase in road congestion, a decrease in
mass transit ridership, and ultimately, an increase in air pollution (Barnett, 2001). The
increase of municipalities’ land area and the separation of land usage due to zoning laws
created a situation where public transportation was no longer adequate and the
automobile was needed to get from place to place.
Since World War II, the two mutually reinforcing processes of decentralization
and the increasing reliance of the automobile have continued to ensure that urban sprawl
growth continues as well as traffic congestion (Autler & Belzer, 2002). The complexity
of the interaction of federal laws in conjunction with state and local laws becomes
apparent when one realizes that the problem keeps on growing due to the reinforcing of
the status quo. The funding of highways by the federal government and the federal
government’s housing policies allowed cities to afford to expand from their urban centers
and offer their citizens the opportunity to own their own property with a front and back
yard. The funding subsidized growth that would have not been achieved through market
forces alone. As Americans began to earn more, they could afford to buy their own
10
houses outside the city center and to own an automobile they could use to commute to
work and get around the ever expanding city suburbs.
The zoning laws led to large parcels of land to be set aside for specific individual
uses that soon led to the necessity of citizens needing to own an automobile in order to
get from one section of the city to another. As cities began to expand tremendously over
large areas of land and population density decreased, public transportation lost the ability
to meet the needs of the citizens due to the greater convenience and need of the
automobile. The losing of public transportation as an alternate form of transportation in
many communities across America, only continued to add to the rise of automobiles on
the roads. As the number of cars on the road increased, the highways built were quickly
loosing the ability to handle the high volume of traffic, leading to the rise of traffic
congestion. The catalysts for urban sprawl and traffic congestion are all dependent on
each other for perpetuating the problem, and ultimately, to solve it.
The factors that led to urban sprawl and continue to contribute to it are deeply
rooted in the American psyche. Growing up with these mortgage policies, zoning laws,
and racial policies of the Federal and local governments has lead to generations of
Americans feeling that this was normal, the correct way, and simply, the way of things;
creating the American psyche. The American Dream, defined as owning your own home
and car in the suburbs, was caused by this engrained American psyche (Arapkiles et al,
1998). Americans almost feel that owning an automobile is a birthright and not owning
one is equivalent to having rights denied to them. This can be seen all across America as
teenagers clamor for an automobile once they turn sixteen; I know I did. It is amusing to
me to see that although many Americans feel urban sprawl is not a serious problem, they
11
highly detest traffic congestion; which is caused by urban sprawl. If we are to modify
any of the forces that feed urban sprawl, it will require a fundamental change in the way
that Americans think, and the way that urban development is managed (Barnett, 2001).
Urban Sprawl Side Effects
Urban sprawl has led to many side effects that are quite negative. These include
the loss of rural and farming land that once was located in the outskirts of many
communities throughout America, continued sprawl growth due to zoning laws, and the
greatest effect, that of increased traffic congestion and all the problems associated with it.
The negative side effects of growth and zoning will be discussed in this section, while
serious side effect of traffic congestion will be discussed in the following section.
Since 1970, 86% of population growth occurred in the suburbs, partly due to
continued low mortgage rates and government policies in promoting suburban expansion
(Gordon & Richardson, 2000). Suburban expansion due to urban sprawl has led to 19
million acres of rural land being developed between 1970 and 1990. This translates to
400 thousand acres being bulldozed for new development in the outskirts of cities every
year (Arapkiles et al, 1998). To show the severity of the problem, here are a few quick
examples of urban sprawl run amuck. Urban land areas have been expanding on average,
at twice the rate of the population (“Population Growth and…,”n.d.). In Portland,
Oregon, the population grew 50% since 1975, but only expanded 2% area wise due to
urban growth boundaries. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the population grew 2.8% in the
same amount of time, but grew 33% more land wise (“Myths and Fact Soundbites,” n.d.)
12
This disparity shows how urban sprawl is not indicative of population growth and thus
can be controlled without leading to a problem of over crowding as some might suggest.
Current zoning laws continue to add to the problem of urban sprawl throughout
American metropolitan areas by continuing to perpetuate the dividing of areas by
residence only, commercial and industrial areas, but not a combination of all three. Even
in residential zones, a hierarchy has been created by zoning laws. Huge tracts of land are
designated for single family houses, while others are for apartments housing. Most
neighborhoods built after the 1950s are designed like this, but those built before then
have a successful mix of lot sizes and building types which are often within walking
distance of neighborhood commercial centers. Although the latter are hard to sustain
during economic hardships, they are often successful enough to function most of the time
and still maintain these commercial centers within walking distance of residential areas.
The opposite is true of newer developed neighborhoods as they require a person to ride
an automobile to get to any commercial area (Barnett, 2001).
Another good example of zoning laws being highly inadequate and adding to
urban sprawl growth is that of commercial-strip zoning. Back when urban areas were
fairly small, it made sense to map commercial frontages continuously along trolley-car
routes in city main streets, but not along arterial highways, as became the norm in the
1950s and 1960s. Commercial-strip zoning led to land not being used efficiently, and
making it too narrow for there to be an efficient cluster of development in any one place.
This type of zoning law has led to the familiar pattern across the United States of
individual shops, restaurants, and small offices which all have their own parking lot. Set-
back and yard zoning requirements also accentuate the discontinuity from one building to
13
the next. These commercial strips are actually a big cause of traffic tie-ups that plague
suburbia all across America (Barnett, 2001).
Sadly, zoning laws continue to encourage middle and upper middle class families
to move away from city centers to the suburbs, which in turn, continue to increase the
number of minorities and poor families that remain in urban areas that continue to have
declining economies and increasing crime rates. Examples of this happening can be seen
in most major metropolitan areas; the suburbs tend to be affluent and mostly made up of
white residents while the urban centers tend to be dilapidated and mostly inhabited by
minorities and the poor (Barnett, 2001). As the affluent leave these urban centers, the tax
base is decreasing leading the quality of schools to decline, crime rates to increase, green
spaces to shrink, and infrastructure to be neglected, which in turns leads to even more
flight (“Population Growth and…” n.d.).
The problem of continued urban sprawl growth is due to Americans wanting to
continue to move to the suburbs. Recent studies have shown that 83% of American
citizens preferred to live n the suburbs in a larger home far away from most commercial
areas, than in a condo or apartment in the central areas of cities which would place them
closer to shopping, work, and public transportation (Downs, 2004). Although many do
agree that condos and apartments are quite adequate if located close to public
transportation, they prefer to get as far away from work as possible; home is seen as the
place that offers them a reprieve from work. The lack of backyard space for pets and
children also concerns many people who have a choice between living in an urban center
or suburbia. This is why most prefer to live in the suburbs (Madsen, 2001), even if
suburban homes tend to be unsuitable for small families (Barnett, 2001).
14
Urban sprawl has led to a higher demand for automobiles, which in turn has led to
the creation of the American idea that automobiles are the only way to get around a
community even if alternatives exist. This belief continues to add to the increase in
traffic congestion that plagues all of America’s metropolitan areas and lead to the failure
of public transportation in many cities. The problems mentioned in the above paragraphs
have led to new movements in urban development, and a greater attempt to promote
public transportation in America’s ever growing metropolitan areas.
Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion is characterized by cars traveling at lower speeds, increased
queuing, and longer trip times. Traffic congestion occurs when demand is greater than
the capacity of the roads in existence, which is a fairly common thing in most American
communities (“Traffic Congestion,” 2007). As metropolitan areas continue to expand
without implementing public transportation reforms, the automobile becomes even more
of a primary means of transportation.
As the populations of American metropolitan areas continue to grow, they
continue to swamp the existing infrastructure’s capacity. In fact, automobile growth in
the United States is actually higher than that of population growth. From 1980 to 2000,
1.2 vehicles were added per every 1.0 person added to the population of the United
States. Major reasons for this growth are the increasing wealth of most Americans, more
affordable automobiles, relatively cheap gasoline prices in the past, and the fact that
automobiles are necessary to get around most American metropolitan areas due to urban
sprawl (Downs, 2004).
15
Traffic congestion’s many negative side affects range from wasting the driver's
time, to creating an economic loss. According to the Texas Transportation Institute,
Americans sat still in traffic for about 3.6 billion hours in 2003. This can be equated to
55 eight-hour workdays a year spent behind the wheel (Arapkiles et al, 1998). This
amounted to about $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the United States’
Gross Domestic product, or GDP (“Traffic Congestion,” 2007). Commuters that have
commutes lasting longer than 60 minutes grew by almost 50% between 1990 and 2000,
according to Census Department data (“Despite cost of gas…,” 2007). The loss in
economic productivity is not only due to the idle time, but because traffic congestion can
result in tardiness for many individuals reducing company revenues and also can lead to
disciplinary action for these tardy individuals (“Traffic Congestion,” 2007).
These aren’t the only economic impact of traffic congestion as individual
motorists must fix their automobiles more often due to the wear and tear of the frequent
acceleration and braking common of most traffic congestion situations. The wear and
tear leads to more repairs and replacements of automobile parts costing the individual a
fair amount of money for maintenance (“Traffic Congestion,” 2007). Mental health can
also become an issue due to traffic congestion. Traffic can lead to increased stress due to
the frustration of being stuck in traffic which then can lead to road rage (“Traffic
Congestion,” 2007). I have experienced this first hand as well as friends and family.
Road rage can become dangerous and in extreme cases has led to the physical
harm of some motorists by the individuals suffering from road rage. A recent study by
AutoVantage, a Connecticut-based automobile membership club, rated the cities with the
worst road rage according to a survey completed by its members. Prince Market
16
Research conducted the survey for AutoVantage by conducting a telephone survey
between January and March of 2007 and asked more than 2,500 drivers who commute
regularly in 25 major metropolitan areas. Miami, Florida was rated the worst, Boston,
Massachusetts came in third, and Phoenix, Arizona came in 6th; the survey had a margin
of error of plus or minus two percentage points (“$%^#!! Miami…,” 2007).
Traffic congestion also leads to increased consumption of imported oil as fuel is
wasted in idling and the constant acceleration and braking associated with traffic.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute's most recent estimate, it found that
traffic congestion costs about 5.7 billion gallons of wasted fuel for a cost of $69.5 billion
in 2001 when loss of economic productivity is included (Burchell et al, 2005). The usage
of the automobile as the main means of transportation also leads to 43% of total energy
consumption in the United States and a whopping 33% of greenhouse emissions. If
Americans used public transportation for just 10% of their needs, greenhouse gas
emissions would be reduced by more than 25% of what would have been this country’s
target under the Kyoto Accord (Autler & Belzer, 2002).
According to a recent study, 87.9% of American’s who commute to their place of
employment use private vehicles. This means that there are countless millions of
vehicles moving on America’s roads at the same times of the day. The current road
infrastructure simply cannot support this high volume of automobiles, thus traffic
congestion continues to grow into a major issue in every metropolitan areas (Downs,
2004). On average, American’s spent as much of their income (about 20%) on
transportation as they spent on housing yearly in the 1990s. It varies greatly from areas
with high density and good public transit in place to those that don’t. In Honolulu and
17
New York City, the citizens only spend about 9% of their income on transportation;
while in low density areas such as Houston, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Phoenix, they
spend up to 23% of their income on automobile transportation (“New Urbanism,” 2006).
The fact that the automobile is the most important form of transportation in the
sprawled out areas of most cities, the poorest of Americans who usually cannot afford an
automobile are being forced to remain in the city centers. This is because they have to
either rely on public transportation or walking to get to work or anywhere else. This then
tends to reinforce the idea that public transportation is for the less desirable members of
the population in metropolitan areas that have poor transport and most depend on the
automobile (Barnett, 2001) such as my home town of El Paso, Texas and my future
home, Phoenix, Arizona.
The fact that Americans prefer to drive private vehicles in general is a major
reason for the increasing traffic congestion problem. One reason for this is that most
public transportation systems cannot efficiently serve low density communities. Private
vehicles are considered more comfortable than public transportation, faster, more private,
easier to plan trips with, and most importantly, private vehicles allow greater flexibility
when doing multiple tasks in one trip, than any form of public transportation can offer
(Downs, 2004). This point is easily made by David Harris, a 31-year-old film school
marketing manager in Los Angeles who commutes 40 miles a day for work said, “It’s a
little inconvenient for me to take the bus (“Despite Cost of Gas…,”2007).” Even with
gas prices so high nowadays, Americans still continue to use their automobiles because of
the convenience and flexibility. Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co.
18
recently said, “People complain about higher oil prices…but they still drive their cars,
they still buy their SUVs, they don’t want to carpool (“Despite Cost of Gas…,” 2007).”
Traffic congestion is the by product of urban sprawl and it is an issue that should
be dealt with soon. American’s being dependent on the automobile due to the urban
planning ideas that caused urban sprawl, does not help the cause of getting them to use
public transportation instead of the automobile in most cities. The increase of
automobiles on the road only tends to aggravate the situation and ultimately leads to the
negative effects caused by traffic congestion. These effects range from economic,
environmental, to mental. Communities all across American now all agree that traffic
congestion is a serious problem, but most solutions such as increasing road capacity and
using technology to warn motorists of up coming traffic are not solving the core of the
problem. The core problem is that American’s must stop their dependence of the
automobile and the communities must provide them with an adequate public
transportation as an alternative.
19
CHAPTER 3
WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIX THE PROBLEM?
The fact that the federal government has not done much to help with the problem
of urban sprawl nor that of traffic congestion, states and local municipalities are now
taking charge to fix these problems. As state legislation becomes necessary to manage
metropolitan growth, and techniques are tried to win political acceptance in some states,
it has become easier to convince other states to take the political risk of passing
legislation to control urban growth. Currently, fourteen states now have growth
management legislation, with Hawaii being the first to enact legislation in 1961, and
Pennsylvania being the most recent (Barnett, 2001).
The state of Oregon was the first state to require that each metropolitan area set
specific urban growth boundaries and to delineate areas around a city or a town where
new development should take place over the next twenty years. Publicly financed
infrastructure to support development can only be constructed inside these boundaries
(Barnett, 2001). Portland, Oregon created the Portland Metropolitan Service District
which is an actual regional government that has adopted a regional plan that will
accommodate predicted population growth primarily by intensifying development along
rapid transit lines rather than expanding the growth boundary, which has only grown 7%
from the first set limit. This has produced substantial reinvestment in older areas where
infrastructure already exists, as well as limiting construction of new infrastructure outside
the growth boundary (Barnett, 2001).
20
Zoning laws are being improved by changing them so that commercial strips can
enlarge into commercial mixed-zones at key intersections that can become the equivalent
of traditional town centers where people can park once and walk between destinations
(Barnett, 2001). In some places such as in Arlington, Virginia, these districts are big
enough to be served efficiently by buses and other types of public transit (“Transit-
oriented Development,” 2007). Some new zoning laws are creating business
improvement districts in their urban cores, helping to revitalize these areas (Barnett,
2001).
Others issues that once prohibited redevelopment of abandoned areas in
metropolitan centers were that federal and state laws deterred (and still do) potential
buyers from developing areas by exposing them to strict retroactive liability for the cost
of remediating past ground and water pollution problems. Some of these areas are
considered official brownfields, which are areas that are considered to be
environmentally damaged by pollution of any sorts (Barnett, 2001).
In 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund Law which now requires that the parties
responsible for the polluting pay for the clean up of the area. Congress also created a
special tax incentive in 1997 that permitted developers of brownfields in economically
depressed areas to deduct the cost of remediation as an ordinary business expense rather
than having to add it to the cost basis of their property. The Environmental Protection
Agency has estimated that this decrease in after tax remediation might stimulate up to $6
billion in revitalization, and return as many as 14,000 properties back to economically
productive use (Barnett, 2001).
21
Besides using the smarter methods of urban planning to help stem the increasing
traffic congestion problems, cities are beginning to enact other ideas to help alleviate the
problem. Aside from increasing the number of roads with new construction, cities such
as Seattle, Washington are providing such novel things as providing ramp-metering
which lets vehicles gradually enter expressways. Other cities such as Houston and
Boston are creating High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes which are commonly known as the
Carpool Lanes. HOV lanes are not perfect because they often are not properly enforced,
at times lead to increased traffic congestion, and usually take a lane out of service from
the existing roadways (Downs, 2004).
Using Urban Development
As mentioned in the preceding section, cities are utilizing many methods of urban
planning in an attempt to fix the problems from the past. One idea of thought that is now
being greatly considered is that of New Urbanism. New urbanism is a movement that is
attempting to reform all aspects of real estate development and urban planning (“New
Urbanism,” 2006). This school of thought, though popular, still has many critics.
New urbanism’s popularity increased in the beginning of the 1980s. The
movement aims to create neighborhoods that are walk-able and designed to contain a
diverse range of housing and jobs. It fully supports regional planning for open space,
appropriate architecture, and a balanced development of jobs and housing. The aim of
the movement is to reduce the time that people spend in traffic, to increase the supply of
affordable housing for minorities and the poor, and to ultimately reign in urban sprawl.
22
This type of movement is also known as transit-oriented development (“New Urbanism,”
2006).
Transit-oriented neighborhoods usually have a center in which a tram/bus/train or
metro station is located and is surrounded by relatively high density developments that
progressively become less dense the farther you get from the center. The high density
development is normally located within a radius of no more than a half mile from the
transit focal point; this is because this distance is considered to be an appropriate scale for
pedestrians. These features often encourage the use of public transportation because of
the convenience and the lack of parking available in the area (“Transit-oriented
Development,” 2007).
Transit-oriented developments usually feature mixed-used development that will
utilize public transit at all times of day, provide excellent pedestrian facilities such as
high quality pedestrian crossings, narrow streets, and the tapering of buildings as they
become more distant from the transit hub. Mixed-use development is when there is more
that one type of use in a building or a set of buildings, such as housing, retail, and office
space. When zoning of an area is concerned, mixed-use development means that a
combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other such uses
are included in the area (“Mixed-use Development,” 2006). A very recent example of
transit-oriented and mixed-use development is that of the North Point Development in
Cambridge, MA. It is located in an area that was underutilized, but will now be
developed to include a central park, residential units, retail and office space, that will
total several million square feet of development (personal communication with Benjamin
Newlin, December 2005).
23
Mixed-use development was the most prominent style of development throughout
history; from ancient times up to the 20th Century, which can be seen in the New York
City area. This type of development fell out of favor during the industrial age in the 19th
Century due to the pollution created by the factories. With the introduction of the
Euclidian zoning laws, mixed-use development was no longer a pursued method of
development (“Mixed-use Development,” 2006).
Many critics point out the fact that mixed-use developments are considered to be
better suited for those who prefer public amenities to private regulated personal space.
These type of developments most always lack yard space for children and pets, turning
off many Americans. Mixed-use development is also considered to be risky by
developers and lenders because all aspects of the development need to succeed and
remain in business, if the overall development is to succeed. The Prudential Building
Complex is a great example of Mixed-use development. Mixed-use developments are
also costlier than single use suburban developments. In urban areas, mixed-use
developments can cost up to 50% more to build than building the same amount of space
in the suburbs, in part due to the higher cost of construction in urban centers due to the
difficulty of bringing in construction materials (“Mixed-use Development,” 2006).
Some individuals argue that new urbanism ideas, such as transit-oriented and
mixed-used developments, are robbing Americans of their civil freedoms to property
rights and free flowing traffic. They claim that these types of developments are trying to
force the American populace to give up these freedoms by being told how to live. This is
the most extreme cases that are stated, but one can see how people seemed threatened
when the vision of the American Dream is called into question. As mentioned earlier, the
24
American psyche was created by decades of bad urban planning and the belief that urban
sprawl was the way it was and should be. People tend to be afraid of change and it seems
that people who use this argument are simply afraid of change.
Others claim that new urbanism ideals are really only corporate greed masked to
seem socially responsible. They claim that greed is forcing developers to attempt to
gentrify urban areas with these types of developments by forcing out the low income
citizens in order to attract more affluent residents. Some critics even claim that this type
of thinking elevates aesthetics over practicality (“New Urbanism,” 2006). I disagree with
the claim that aesthetics are being elevated over practicality, but can see how people may
feel that new urbanism ideals are really about making money. I do not deny that real-
estate developers are trying to make money from each development, but they are also the
individuals that are spending the money and taking the risk. Many loose millions of
dollars if developments fail, and many make millions if they succeed, but one must
realize that if these developments succeed, then an area once dilapidated has been
refurbished and increased the city’s tax base. The problem of gentrification is a serious
issue that must be addressed when attempting to redevelop dilapidated areas.
Although cities are now taking charge in trying to stem the problem of urban
sprawl and traffic congestion, it is not without its critics. The fact that only fourteen out
of fifty states have urban planning legislation shows that the American psyche of owning
one's own car and house with a white picket fence in the suburbs is still deeply engrained.
It will take decades of hard work by state and local governments to change this way of
thinking.
25
Using Public Transportation
Many cities are currently pursuing public transportation as an attempt to fight the
traffic congestion problems that plague them, and trying to make it convenient in order to
make it successful. Public transportation comprises all transport systems in which the
passengers do not travel in their own vehicles, but rather in a regulated common carrier
which is configured to provide regular service on a fixed route on a non-reservation basis
(“Public Transport,” 2007). Rapid Transit, which consists of subway, underground, tube,
and an elevated transit, is a railway usually in urban areas with the capacity for frequent
service, and grade separation from other traffic. It is a rail-based transportation system
that should be urban, electric, independent from traffic, and run with high frequency
(“Light Rail,” 2007).
Cities that have a very convenient transit such as London, Moscow, New York
City, Madrid, Paris, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, and Osaka, are the only cities in the
world where the residents use public transportation as the primary means of
transportation. In America, one third of the Americans that use public transportation live
in New York City. Cities such as Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Las
Vegas, and Houston depend so much on automobiles, that they have partial and/or poorly
used public transportation systems (“Light Rail,” 2007).
Most public transportation systems generally rely on government subsidies to
supplement income from fare collections, though some are run as unsubsidized
commercial enterprises, or are fully funded by governments. Some systems also earn
income through such means as unused real estate in the form of parking fees, leasing
space to shops and vendors, advertising, and rights-of-way to carry fiber optic
26
communication lines. In the United States, the Federal Transit Administration which is an
agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation administers programs that provide
funding and support services to state and local agencies that operate a wide range of
transportation services (“Public Transport,” 2007).
Cities tend to fund public transportation infrastructure in order to promote
business and economic growth or in order to regenerate deprived areas of a city. It is the
hope that by building a transportation system through dilapidated areas, then it will lead
to mixed-use type of developments which will transform areas close to the transportation
system. This can be seen happening as well at North Point in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Some city governments feel that this investment will ultimately save taxpayer money in
other ways such as alleviating the costs associated with traffic congestion, road
construction, and environmental damage due to having fewer cars on the road (“Public
Transport,” 2007).
Public transportation is not without its critics though. Many critics of public
transportation state that it is overly expensive and ineffective. One mistake with many of
these arguments is that critics compare many new transportation systems to older, far
more developed systems. Most compare these systems to New York City’s, Boston’s, or
Chicago’s which are very developed and in high use (Litman, 2007). You can’t expect
that Phoenix’s mere twenty miles of light rail will move the same number of individuals
as New York City, a city well over ten million, compared to Phoenix’s three million or
so. Since 1990, light rail ridership has nearly doubled from 175 million users to 336
million users in 2001. Eleven out of twelve new rail systems built after 1980 in the
27
United States have added new lines due to increases in demand (“What Critics are
Saying,” n.d.).
The argument that cities inflate expected ridership numbers in order to secure
funding, were once based on fact, but now have no real merit. When the communities
across the United States started building new light rail systems after the 1970s, there was
no real data to draw on due to the lack of light rail systems in existence; this led to over
inflation of passenger numbers. Now, the Federal Transit Administration has improved
oversight and provided actual data that has led to proper estimation of expected ridership
for new systems. Salt Lake City’s TRAX light rail was expected to carry about 14
thousand riders weekly, but within a month of opening, it was carrying 19 thousand on
weekdays (“What Critics are Saying,” n.d.).
Another argument used against public transportation is that it is heavily
subsidized. Local critics of public transportation site how in 2003 U.S. transit operators
obtained only 32.6% of funding from the federal government, which meant that most
costs were paid by state and local governments (“Public Transport,” 2007). Even so, all
public transportation funding only accounts for around 20% while the remaining 80% of
federal and state funding is for roadways (“What the Critics are Saying,” n.d.).
Opponents also argue that the per mile construction and maintenance costs of
constructing a subway or light rail line often equal or exceed that of an urban freeway,
yet do not divert the same number of automobiles off the road (“Public Transport,”
2007). Although this argument can be true, opponents use skewed information to make
their point. The main skewing of information occurs when opponents use actual public
transportation ridership numbers compared to theoretical road capacity maximums. If
28
opponents were to compare apples to apples, they would see that for roads to carry the
same number of people possible on a six car light rail, it would take a 12 lane freeway
going in one direction to achieve the same passenger movement in automobiles as would
be moved in this light rail. These opponents also leave out the fact that even if new roads
are built, they quickly fill up to capacity and thus only reduce traffic congestion 1/11th of
a percent for every one percent of new roadway built (“What Critics are Saying,” n.d.).
Some peoples concerns are that public transportation systems attract ‘undesirable
elements’ and violent crimes on passengers and the homeless that sleep in train stations
or the trains themselves. The reality, though, is that most transport systems are actually
well-patrolled and generally have low crime rates (“Public Transport,” 2007). This view
is also skewed in that many Americans have the perception that public transportation is
only for the poor and criminals, thus building it will only lead to rises in crime. I partly
feel that this is the racial and stereotypical feelings that many Americans might harbor
without even realizing it.
Some people are not complete opponents to public transportation, but they are
opponents to light rail. They suggest that the money should be spent on increasing bus
service because it is cheaper and light rail costs too much and only affects a small area.
Actually, buses cost more per passenger mile than light rail does. On average, passenger
miles for buses cost $0.55 while light rail passenger miles cost $.045 (“What Critics are
Saying,” n.d.). Part of the reason is that 80% of public transportation costs are related to
operation. Buses normally carry about 100 thousand passenger for every employee at
work compared to 206 thousand for light rail and 294 thousand for subway. Opponents
of light rail often cite the high cost associated with building light rail systems which
29
range from $10 to $30 million per mile, while buses cost about $1 to $8 million to begin
(“What Critics are Saying,” n.d.). There is no denying the high cost of building light rail,
but the figures above show that light rail is a cheaper alternative in the long run and far
more efficient than any bus system. One problem with building light rails that must be
addressed is that often when light rail systems are built, the bus services suffer, defeating
the purpose of building light rail to promote public transportation. If bus services are
reduced, it tends to affect the communities negatively and actually reduce the attraction to
the light rail by the commuters. Solutions to this problem can be as easy as providing
separate operating budgets for the light rail system and bus system to ensure that neither
suffers due to the other (Johnson, 2006).
Public transportation, in my opinion is the solution to many of the traffic
congestion problems that cities face in America. In fact, surveys done by various
organizations show that 66% of Americans feel that improving public transportation will
lead to solving the traffic congestion problem (“What Critics are Saying,” n.d.). I think it
will ultimately be a solution to ease urban traffic congestion, help stem urban sprawl, and
reduce greenhouse emissions. Public transportation definitely has its critics, but my goal
is to show that it can reduce traffic congestion when the other factors that affect urban
sprawl and create traffic congestion are modified to promote it. Simply implementing a
new public transport by itself will not lead to a reduction in traffic congestion. Instead,
zoning and development laws should be amended in order to promote the growth of
public transportation in conjunction with improving the convenience and attractiveness of
public transportation itself.
30
Organizations Taking Up the Cause
As the issues of urban sprawl and traffic congestion become larger and of more
concern to the average American, organizations are beginning to take notice and to
advocate for smarter growth and public transportation. In fact, a survey by the Pew
Center for Civic Journalism found out that urban sprawl ties with crime as a top local
concern for most Americans (“Population Growth and Suburban Sprawl…,” n.d.). This
is quite surprising, but at the same time shows that this subject that I chose for my
synthesis is very important and the average American should begin trying to become
more involved.
One of the organizations that I found could help the average American become
more involved in trying to solve urban sprawl, fight traffic congestion, and promote
public transportation is the Sierra Club. It is an organization that was begun on May 28,
1892 that was originally meant to explore and protect all wild places on earth. It is
aiming to promote the responsible use of earth’s ecosystems and resources and to educate
and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural environment. This
has led the Sierra Club to begin becoming an active participant in fighting urban sprawl
and promoting public transportation and smart development. They use all lawful means
to carry out objectives and have many chapters across the country where everyday
citizens can join and begin the fight of traffic congestion and urban sprawl (“Inside Sierra
Club,” n.d.).
The Sierra Club also gives several suggestions so that the average citizen can
have a voice in their communities’ urban planning ideas. They suggest that the average
citizen chime in by attending public hearings regarding urban planning projects, to write
31
to their local, state, and national representatives voicing their concerns regarding urban
sprawl and its side effects, and to write letters to the editor of their local newspapers
when they disagree or agree with city plan as an effort to promote dialogue and
discussion amongst the citizens of their cities (“Stop Sprawl: What Can…,” n.d.).
Another organization that I felt was very helpful in educating me about public
transportation is that of the Center for Transportation Excellence. I think it does a
fantastic job of educating the average citizen as well as being an amazing resource for my
project and all civic leaders attempting to promote and introduce public transportation
projects in their cities. The Center for Transportation Excellence is a clearing house for
information that supports quality transportation choices. It is committed to defending the
merits of public transportation and equipping local leaders with the information they need
to successfully promote and implement their transportation initiatives. The organization
creates case studies that illustrate the power and effectiveness of public transportation.
They also develop tool kids to help local leaders in communicating the benefits of public
transportation programs, as well as mobilizing in response to media coverage of
opposition to public transportation by writing letters to the editor to counter opponents’
arguments (“About Us,” 2006)
These are by no means the only organizations that are fighting urban sprawl,
traffic congestion, and promoting public transportation, but they helped me further
understand the complexity in solving traffic congestion and urban sprawl by utilizing
public transportation and smart growth urban planning. Realizing that there are
organizations willing to help everyday citizens not only show that this issue is coming to
32
the forefront in urban planning cases, but that the average citizen is becoming concerned
with the issues and want to get involved in being part of the solution.
33
CHAPTER 4
A LOOK AT METROPOLITAN PHOENIX, ARIZONA
This chapter will take a look at the city of Phoenix and some facts in order to aid
me in understanding its current situation, its past, and its future plans. Having grown to
understand the history of urban sprawl and traffic congestion and its proposed solutions
using urban planning and public transportation and their complex relationship, I will now
begin to use this knowledge to find solutions that I feel the city of Phoenix and
surrounding communities can use to make public transportation a success and thus reduce
traffic congestion. This chapter also helped me better understand my future city as I
begin to set my career plans in motion.
Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona is located in the Sonoran Desert which encompasses most of the
Southwestern area of the United States. Because of its desert location, Phoenix only
receives an average of 8 inches of rain a year, meaning that the city relies heavily on
water from very far away. Being limited to and reliant on water from very far away is a
major hurdle to sustain continued growth. According to Pat Gober, a professor at ASU in
Tempe, AZ, “Phoenix has an economy and a political structure that is built on growth; so
once it starts rolling, it just keeps on rolling" (Price, 2006).
The population of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is estimated to be 3.9 million
making it the 14th largest in the United States. Metropolitan Phoenix has been
34
experiencing exponential growth since the 1950s. From 1950 to 1970, the population in
Greater Phoenix grew 300% and land area increased 630% (“Population Growth and…,”
n.d.) From 1980 to 2000, the population grew about 132% and grew about 50% in land
area (“Phoenix, Arizona,” 2007). See Appendix A for a map of Metropolitan Phoenix.
Due to this high growth, Phoenix suffers heavily from traffic congestion on all of
its major roadways. Time spent in traffic in the Phoenix-Mesa area has increased at rates
similar to that of Los Angeles. A study done by the Texas Transportation Institute in
conjunction with Texas A&M showed that time spend in traffic increased from an
average of around 1.2 hours a day to 1.6 hours a day from 1982 to 2000 (“Traffic: Traffic
Time Index,” 2002). This accelerated growth along with problems of water usage,
climate change, and urban decay are only being amplified by Phoenix’s desert location
(Price, 2006).
Phoenix has urban planning issues due to a culture of migration, where a large
percentage of the population comes from other places. This in turn contributes to
disparate ideas about growth policy in each city and town in the metropolitan area. An
example of this is that of the senior citizen communities of Sun City, Youngtown, and
Sun City West which withdrew from their respective school districts so that they no
longer had to pay taxes to those districts. The older citizens of these communities did not
feel that they should pay for the education of other communities’ children. Senior
citizens in the metropolitan area also regularly vote against metropolitan initiatives for
transportation expansion and upgrades (Price, 2006).
In order to stem the uncontrolled urban sprawl growth for which the city had
become known for, the State of Arizona passed legislation in 1985 which required that
35
the City of Phoenix create a General Plan. On October 2, 1985, the city of Phoenix
adopted their first General plan that was to be updated annually (Phoenix Planning
Department, 2006). The plan originally consisted of ten elements that the city would
follow, but the General Plan was amended in 2002 to expand its focus on the
environment and natural resources (Phoenix Planning Department, 2007). The General
Plan elements are formatted to include goals, policies, and recommendations; it reflects
both what the city would love to achieve over the years and what has actually been
accomplished (Phoenix Planning Department, 2007). See Appendix B for a General Plan
overview.
The General Plan can only be amended by various specific groups. Amendments
can be proposed by a village planning committee, two members of the planning
commission, by a city council member, or by owners of property in cases of land use map
changes. In 2000 the Arizona State Legislature adopted the Growing Smarter Plus
legislation which was a stronger version of the 1998 Growing Smarter Legislation
(Phoenix Planning Department, 2007). This legislation added the Growth Area, Open
Environmental Planning, Cost of Development, and Water Resources elements which
were ultimately approved in 2002 by the City of Phoenix Planning Department, only after
conducting an extensive involvement plan to get community input from 1999-2000.
Over 2000 households were contacted directly via telephone to participate in a survey,
flyers were placed in utility bills, a tabloid was placed in the Arizona Republic
summarizing the new draft of the General Plan, presentations and mailings to community
groups throughout the city, holding three open houses, having the city village committees
36
review the plan changes, and ultimately holding ten public hearings (Phoenix Planning
Department, 2007).
Along with smart growth planning, the General Plan addresses the issue of public
transportation which has historically been very inadequate for a city the size of Phoenix.
The uncontrolled urban sprawl has not allowed public transportation to keep pace, thus
adding to the problem of Phoenix residents continuing to use their private automobiles
over public transport. Throughout most of the 1990s, Phoenix was the largest
metropolitan area in the United States that had transit service only operating on Monday
through Saturday without any Sunday or Saturday night service. This only began to
change in 2001 with the expansion of service to Sunday in Phoenix, Glendale, and
Scottsdale (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007).
Public transportation in the Phoenix Metropolitan area is run by the Regional
Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) which is known as Valley Metro. Valley Metro
is responsible for providing public transit in the Phoenix Metropolitan area and all of
Maricopa County (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007 & “Phoenix, Arizona,” 2007 &
“About Us,” 2006). In contrast to the MBTA which runs all bus service and subway
service in the Boston Metropolitan area, Valley Metro does not actually operate the
majority of transit services in the region. It is considered a membership organization in
which most services are separately funded and operated by the individual cities and
suburbs in the Greater Phoenix area that belong to Valley Metro. These cities agreed to
participate in Valley Metro as a unifying brand to streamline service and to reduce
confusion amongst riders (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007 & “About Us,” 2006).
37
The RPTA was formed in 1985 as a result of Phoenix area voters approving a
one-half percent sales tax increase for a long-overdue expansion of the local freeway
system and for an expansion of mass transit, which was sorely needed. The RPTA did
not begin operating under Valley Metro until 1993 when the board of directors chose the
name, the logo, and color scheme. In 2004, Proposition 400 passed which extended this
half-cent tax to include a ‘SuperGrid’ bus service, bus rapid transit, and light rail. The
‘SuperGrid’ bus service currently has a travel frequency of about 15 minutes (“Valley
Metro (Phoenix),” 2007 & “About Us,” 2006).
The Phoenix Metropolitan area mostly relies on bus service for its public
transportation. Valley Metro operates bus routes around the Phoenix area through private
companies based in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Glendale, and other parts of Maricopa
county. Bus routes are fairly easy to understand as the routes are numbered roughly
according to the streets on which they travel. The buses operate from about 5a.m. until at
least 10p.m., with some in operation until 1a.m. in the city of Tempe. The Bus Book,
which lists all the bus routes, is updated twice yearly. It is about the size of a medium-
sized catalogue of around 250 pages and can be found at Valley Metro ticket offices,
public libraries, community colleges, civic facilities around the metro area, online, and on
the buses themselves. Customers can also call a toll-free number where a live operator
will help them plan out their journey (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007).
Valley Metro also coordinates Rideshare, which is a vanpool and carpool service
that is often organized through employer group programs. This is one of Valley metro’s
most used services, though it does not garner much attention (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),”
2007).
38
It is evident that the citizens of the Phoenix Metropolitan area are currently forced
to rely on private automobiles due to the inconvenient and inadequate transit service.
Past uncontrolled growth is now being addressed by the recently amended General Plan
which is also attempting to address the public transportation issues that the Metropolitan
Phoenix area is facing by utilizing planned growth, zoning, and smart development in
order to make public transportation more convenient and reliable.
Phoenix’s General Plan: A Critical Look
The first element of the City General Plan is that of Land Use. This element
discusses the type of land uses that are needed in the city, and how they should be
arranged. The land use portion of the plan can be considered the city’s zoning laws. The
city of Phoenix tries to follow the Urban Village Model, which currently has designated
the city of Phoenix into 14 existing villages. The Urban Village is divided into five
components which are the Core which consists of a central focus with a pedestrian
friendly mixed-use land usage, residential neighborhoods, community services areas,
regional services areas, and open space (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006).
This element is a good start, but it still has the signature of urban sprawl in that it
still advocates the separation of the residential areas from the commercial and jobs.
Although the city is being zoned into ‘villages,’ each village is not being conducive to the
promotion of public transportation. Separation of the five village areas will still require
that citizens in these villages depend on their automobiles to get from one place to
another. Although the zoning of the separate areas is meant to keep each village
manageable and in a sense self sufficient, it is not addressing the problem of traffic
39
congestion nor is it advocating higher density in order to promote the usage of public
transportation.
The second element is that of Area Growth which was adopted in 1998 in
response to acknowledging the uncontrolled growth of the city. This element attempts to
understand the growth of the city itself and to maintain the quality of neighborhoods and
maintain a viable economic base. The key concepts of this element are making sure the
location of employment growth is where it is needed, that residential growth is in the
correct location, managing the finances of infrastructure properly, preserving open space
and the desert, creating infill housing, capturing public revenues, targeting growth of
areas, and providing proper transit and transportation planning. (Phoenix Planning
Department, 2006)
The major concern that I find with the Area Growth element is that it does not
attempt to stem the growth of the city. It addresses great concerns such as creating smart
growth and making sure that the surrounding natural areas are preserved, but it doesn’t do
much to increase the density in the existing areas. It also addresses making public transit
available to the new areas, which is great because they are attempting to get people to use
public transport, but it does not go far enough. The element of area growth doesn’t go far
enough because it is not making public transportation more convenient for these new
neighborhoods, which will probably keep ridership at the same level it currently stands.
This element is a start as the city is trying to control the uncontrolled random growth that
resulted in the urban sprawl that Phoenix currently suffers from, but it does not attempt to
reduce the expanding growth the way it should.
40
The next element is that of the Cost of Development, which requires that the city
make the developers of new developments pay for their ‘fair’ share of the cost of new
city facilities. These facilities include such things as water and sewer lines, transmission
lines, parks, fire stations, major streets, libraries, and the preservation of the desert
(Phoenix Planning Department, 2006). Although this is a great idea and a smart one, I
would caution that the city does not impose too much of these costs on developers as it
will discourage them from building necessary developments. I would suggest that the
city of Phoenix offer incentives such as tax breaks for the developers that build city
infrastructure when they develop an area. If developers go above and beyond what is
required, the city should reward them with further incentives; this will usually motivate
developers to take on the responsibility of building necessary city infrastructure without
fearing the high costs associated with such facilities.
The element of Circulation is very important because it is an attempt to reduce
traffic congestion. This involves increasing the size of existing streets as well as
expanding the existing road system. It also makes sure that neighborhoods are protected
from high speed and cut through traffic by ensuring that new roads can handle the high
volume traffic. The element also tries to stem traffic congestion by ensuring that mass
transit is available to all areas of the city, and by expanding the pedestrian and bicycle
environment (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006).
This element is a start in the fight to stem traffic congestion, but it goes not go far
enough. The fact that its main component is to increase the roads available for traffic,
leads me to believe that the city really isn’t doing anything different from before. It
simply is repeating what was done before when the city grew; simply building new roads
41
does not ease traffic congestion in the long run. The element has a public transportation
aspect, but it is not the main factor, which I feel is vital to truly combat the traffic
congestion problem Phoenix faces. New money is necessary to keep roads in working
condition and even increase as the population increases, but more city money should be
spent on promoting public transport than automobile usage.
There is an element for bicycling, which tries to create programs that help reach
the goal of increased bicycle access, ridership increase, and bicycle safety (Phoenix
Planning Department, 2007). This is a great element to have as it not only promotes
exercise, but the use of an alternate form of transportation which can help reduce the
dependence on cars; although marginal, it can help ease congestion.
The General Plan element of Housing recommends ways to improve housing
quality, variety, and affordability in Phoenix. Housing has increased 33% from 1995 to
2000, but little of that has been affordable housing. The element controls housing
development, housing choices, special needs housing, fair housing, and it can determine
what kind of housing is needed in each new development (Phoenix Planning Department,
2006). Although the city is on the right track in trying to ensure that all citizens have
housing, it should also ensure that all new developments include affordable housing as is
done in the city of Boston. The city should also make an effort to promote the building
of mixed-use development housing and of building housing near transit points.
Another element is that of Neighborhoods, which is concerned with promoting
strong, healthy neighborhoods which hope to preserve their unique characters. It aims to
create new neighborhoods that are safe and well maintained as well as creating
neighborhood organizations, maintaining or creating neighborhood character and identity,
42
and ensuring that there is enough neighborhood circulation with streets, sidewalks, and
access to the freeway (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006). As long as the city attempts
to promote more urban housing and the creation of transit-oriented development and
mixed-use housing, it will create new healthy and vibrant neighborhoods.
The next element that the General Plan addresses is that of Conservation,
Rehabilitation, & Redevelopment. This element is included in the Great Plan because it
attempts to protect stable areas and rehabilitate those areas with deterioration. It aims to
protect historic and cultural areas with property preservation, comprehensive
neighborhood revitalization, elimination of deterioration and blight, and adaptive reuse of
obsolete areas (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006). This aspect of the plan is very
important as it leads to redevelopment of dilapidated areas, but without the promotion of
higher density redevelopment and mixed-use and transit-oriented development, the city
won’t become friendlier towards public transportation.
The elements of Environmental Planning and Natural Resources Conservation are
meant to promote community sustainability and viability as well as addressing flood
protection, erosion protection, vegetation protection, and wildlife protection. These
elements are also trying to restore air quality, the reclaiming of brownfields, energy
efficient planning and design, green building, noise mitigation, pollution prevention and
waste minimalization, recycling, and reducing the effects of heat island effects (Phoenix
Planning Department, 2006). The Open Space, Recreation, and Water Resources
elements are meant to ensure that there are open spaces left in all new developments as
well as the protection of natural open spaces around the city and mountains beyond. The
plan attempts to create new open spaces in new developments as well as in existing areas.
43
The General Plan tries to protect the existing water supply and aims to prepare the city
for droughts and the increase in water usage, by implementing water conservation
policies (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006). Safety, Public Building, and Public
Services and Facilities elements are meant to ensure that city neighborhoods are safe, that
government services are easily available to all residents, and that all necessary facilities
are able to handle the expanding growth (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006).
The above mentioned elements of the General Plan are a great start for the City of
Phoenix in trying to rein in uncontrolled growth and improve public transportation.
Another major problem that I see with the plan is that it only addressed the issues of the
City of Phoenix and not of the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan area which includes
Scottsdale, Glendale, Mesa, and Tempe among others. Although these cities are
attempting to emulate the General Plan of Phoenix, without one General Plan for the
whole metropolitan area, the urban sprawl and traffic congestion problems will never be
solved. I understand that there are several distinct cities and towns that compose the
Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area, but a plan should supersede these boundaries in
order to ensure cooperation and success amongst all these sovereign governments in the
Valley. By allowing each of these cities to create their own laws and plans without
working with their neighbors, the problems of urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and
inadequate public transportation will not be solved.
Phoenix’s Public Transportation Plans: A Critical Look
Along with the General Plan for the City of Phoenix, the metropolitan area in
general has begun to realize that due to the previous uncontrolled growth and resulting
44
traffic congestion problems, it needs to help solve these issues through investment in its
public transportation system, along with smart growth and smart urban development.
The reason that public transit has been unsuccessful in the Phoenix Metropolitan
area is because it covers many suburban areas that were not previously seen to be
appropriate for high volume bus service, or light rail service. This has recently changed
as the city begins to control growth, and areas become much more densely developed and
populated. Long term plans from 2015 to 2020 now call for more buses on arterial
streets, and to expand service until at least midnight and start service at an earlier time
(“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007).
Understandably the city had not developed great public transportation routes in
the less densely populated areas, but if it continues to allow outward growth, a lot of
these areas will not become as densely populated as they need to be in order to support
light rail or rapid bus service. Although taking a step in the right direction by expanding
the public transportation hours of service, it seems that by waiting almost a decade to
implement, they aren’t grasping the importance of making public transportation
convenient. Longer service hours would increase ridership as people who are unable to
take public transportation due to the lack of hours of service would now be able to take it.
Later service hours will allow people who go out and drink to stay off the roads and have
a safe alternative to driving in order to get home.
With the General Plan’s ability to allow for higher density in the Greater Phoenix
area, the planning of a light rail system has been an objective since the creation of Valley
Metro in the 1990s. It was originally conceived to be an elevated transit line designated
into three lines known as Val-Trans, but it was soundly defeated by voters in 1993, and
45
1997. It was not until the year 2000 that voters approved the construction of the light rail
system (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007).
The light rail which is currently under construction will simply be known as
METRO after a naming contest. METRO will consist of twenty miles of track that will
service Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa; see Appendix C for a plan of the METRO route.
Construction began in March of 2005 and is slated to be completed by 2008, at an
estimated cost of $1.4 billion dollars. The light rail is slated to operate in city streets in a
center reservation, that is similar to that of the Green Line trolley in Boston. The twenty
mile route was planned to service the areas where public buses had the highest volume of
users (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007 & “About Us,” 2006). It is a real smart idea to
open the first light rail system along the routes of the busiest bus lines in my opinion. It
will not only make it convenient to use for the individuals who currently use the bus
system, but it will also attract newer customers as they realize that it is a clean and fast
method of public transportation that will not have to struggle with daily traffic just like
city buses currently do.
Valley Metro already has set up plans for future extensions of the METRO
system. It is expected to be extended to reach the MetroCenter, a mall in Central
Phoenix, as well as West to Glendale, to the Western Suburbs along Interstate 10,
Northward to Paradise Valley Mall in North Phoenix along Route 51, from Arizona State
University to Southern Tempe, further East into Mesa, and lastly, into Scottsdale running
along Scottsdale Road. Studies are ongoing to find other eligible high capacity corridors
for added service a few decades in the future. See Appendix D for a plan of the proposed
46
extension routes. The first extension is slated to open by 2012, although it is already
falling behind schedule (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007 & “About Us,” 2006).
These extensions seem like a great idea and hopefully Valley Metro can ensure
that these will be convenient and safe to use. I would only suggest that Valley Metro
begin to attempt to make METRO connections to residential areas in the suburbs to begin
promoting further usage of METRO and the public transportation in general. If METRO
is only expanded to shopping centers and sports arenas, the regular daily commuter will
have no interest in using it. Valley Metro needs to ensure that further extensions of
METRO will begin to convince people to stop depending on their automobiles and
instead begin using the METRO system or other means of public transportation.
Valley Metro hopes that the METRO will have a one-third farebox ratio when it
opens, and anticipates it to rise up to 45% by the year 2025. Farebox ratio is the amount
of total operating budget for a transit system that is supplied by fares (“Valley Metro
(Phoenix),” 2007). I believe that this is a great goal by Valley Metro as it realizes that
although many people will use the METRO, it will not be in such high volumes that the
system’s operating costs would be supplied by fares alone. No public transportation
system in the world is fully funded by fares alone. Although it will never have a fare box
ration of 100 percent, Valley Metro should aim at increasing ridership by providing
reliable and convenient service, and by increasing light rail awareness through smart
advertising of the system.
METRO definitely has critics who oppose its very existence. The mayor of
Scottsdale recently made it known that she opposes any light rail extension into her town,
which is a very affluent town in the area. Republican U.S. Representatives Jeff Flake and
47
Trent Franks from Arizona have continued to oppose the light rail project claiming that it
will not address any of the regional transportation needs, but merely that of Phoenix,
Mesa, and Tempe. They and other interest groups would rather use the money to build
more roads and highways; this is the reason the representatives keep attempting to kill the
rail plan altogether. The representatives claim that light rail will not alleviate any traffic
and that it will, in fact, increase the traffic in Central Phoenix and Tempe (Sunnucks,
2004).
I highly disagree with the critics who oppose METRO in general. I don’t believe
that METRO is completely the answer to all of the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan area’s
urban sprawl and traffic congestion problems, but it is a great move in helping this area
become public transportation friendly. I disagree with US Representatives Flake and
Fanks because the money should not be spend on new roads as it only will end up adding
to the traffic congestion problems. It may alleviate congestion in the short term, but if
they continue to advocate the usage of cars, the traffic congestion problem will only
increase.
The mayor of Scottsdale is partly fighting a METRO extension into her city
because of it destroying the city’s beauty, increased crime because of the ‘bad elements’
that it can bring. This is fear mongering in that if Valley Metro and the city of Scottsdale
work diligently at monitoring and protecting the stations, they should be safe and
convenient for everybody to use. A great example of safe public transportation systems
is that of Washington D.C. On a visit to DC a few years ago, I was amazed at how clean
and safe the subway stations were. I think that if the cities work in conjunction with
Valley Metro to keep the stations safe, it will not attract ‘bad elements’ as is feared. This
48
fear is mostly based on prejudices and stereotypes of public transportation that many of
the affluent have.
If the light rail system is considered a success by Valley Metro and the cities of
Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe, it might spur more frequent service and even further
suburban extensions. If Valley Metro is successful in getting Phoenix area citizens to
begin abandoning their automobiles and start using public transport, then elevated rail
service or even subway service might be installed; though these ideas have been rejected
in the past. There is also a movement to begin regional rail service to other Arizona
cities, although it is not being pursued with much vigor at the moment (“Valley Metro
(Phoenix),” 2007).
49
CHAPTER 5
HOW TO MAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A SUCCES IN GREATER PHOENIX
Taking into account the complexity of the subject, I have come up with multi-
layered suggestions that I feel that City of Phoenix and the surrounding communities
should adopt in order to combat the problem of traffic congestion and urban sprawl by
promoting public transportation and ensuring its success. Simply improving and
increasing the reach and convenience of public transportation will not work. I make
suggestions of passing state or local legislation that will enforce smart urban planning
which includes everything from urban growth boundaries, to transit-oriented
development and mixed-use development, in order to promote and ensure the success of
public transportation. I also make suggestions for legislation that the governments should
pass in order to combat traffic congestion while promoting the greater use of public
transportation.
Lastly, the public transportation system should also become an attractive
alternative to the automobile and I make my suggestions for that as well. The synthesis
project may simply be called ‘Fighting Traffic Congestion in Phoenix, Arizona by
Making Public Transportation a Success,’ but that is far too much of a simplification as
you have seen. In order for public transportation to help ease traffic congestion all parties
involved should work together to make public transportation a success and an attractive
alternative to the automobile.
Coming up with these suggestions not only required my understanding of the
issue and the complexity in making public transportation a success, but also benefited
50
from suggestions from peers. I enlisted the help of several peers to understand what
others felt were problems with public transportation, why they preferred the automobile if
they did, and what they felt could be made better in order to make public transportation
far more attractive to more citizens.
I met with five individuals, who consisted of two women and three men, on
March 20, 2007 after work to have a dialogue in order to explore the problem and find
possible solutions. These individuals consisted a wide arrange of careers such as lawyer,
event coordinator/planner, architecture students, and architects; most importantly, they
were also my close friends. In order to show my gratitude for their help, I treated them to
dinner and then met with them at my former employer’s office in one of their conference
rooms. I was the facilitator of the dialogue and prodded them with questions in order to
get the discussion going. I did not impose any of my ideas on them, but merely prodded
them along with each of their ideas, which often matched my own.
Having performed this dialogue greatly helped me in shaping this chapter. I was
able to assure myself that my ideas were feasible and had the backing of individuals with
varying careers and opinions. This dialogue process also allowed me to understand what
ideas I should further research and what to ultimately include in my suggestions. Hearing
what the ‘regular’ person thought put the project into perspective and allowed me to
make suggestions that most individuals could agree upon.
Using Smart Urban Planning and Development
One of the most and effective tools that can promote public transportation in the
Phoenix Metropolitan area is that of smart zoning laws, smart urban planning, and
51
increased usage of transit-oriented and mixed-use developments. As noted above,
Phoenix’s General Plan is a great start, but falls short of promoting public transportation
in order to ease the traffic congestion problem that plagues the area.
First and foremost, the General Plan should not just apply to Phoenix proper, but
to all the cities and communities that make up the Greater Phoenix area. Although it is
safe to assume that all these municipalities cooperate in their urban planning, the Arizona
State Government should pass another law that makes the General Plan apply to the
whole area. The State of Arizona has taken an interest in the City of Phoenix due to it
being the seat of state government, but it cannot be short sighted and act as if the
surrounding communities do not impact their city. Some may argue that the state has no
right interfering in individual cities' affairs, but it can and has by passing legislation that
affects the planning of the city of Phoenix. The legislature should now take the
responsibility of applying that law equally to all municipalities in the state, especially the
Metropolitan Phoenix area. Without this interference from the State, the individual
communities have no real motivation to work together for the common good or recourse
if they do not. The communities may attempt to work together towards the goal of
fighting urban sprawl and promoting public transportation, but if at one point a difficult
decision arises that requires one community to bare the brunt of it, then that community
can just as easily say no and not have anybody to answer to. As I learned in my
Introduction to International Relations course at Boston University; the role of
governments is to protect their citizens and their interests, even if it means at the cost of
other countries (communities in this case).
52
The Arizona State Legislature should pass legislation that affects the whole
Metropolitan area as a whole if they are truly serious about limiting urban sprawl and
promoting smart urban development. In passing legislation for a ‘Region’ General Plan,
the legislature should also ensure that there are safeguards to ensure that the larger cities
and communities do not disregard the needs of the smaller. I would recommend that the
Arizona State Legislature pass legislation similar to that that the State of Oregon passed
in 1973 which required that each community in the state create an urban growth boundary
(“Urban Growth Boundary,” 2006).
The urban growth boundary is a legal boundary separating urban land from rural
land. Its purpose is to protect farms and forests from urban sprawl and to promote the
efficient use of land, public facilities inside the boundary. It is also meant to motivate the
development and redevelopment of land and buildings in the urban core and keep
downtowns in business and allow for local governments to better take care of existing
infrastructure and properly plan where to place new. Instead of spending money building
new infrastructure as the city expands, they utilize the money to fix and maintain what is
in existence (“Urban Growth Boundary,” 2006).
Due to the legislation passed by the Oregon State Legislature, Metro established
in 1977 is the agency responsible for managing the Portland Urban Growth Boundary.
This agency has the power to coordinate between regional and local plans in adopting a
regional growth boundary. They have the power to plan many activities that affect the
city, such as transportation, water quality, air quality, and solid waster amongst others.
Metro also encourages efficient land use by directing most development to the existing
urban centers along major transportation corridors and promotes a balanced
53
transportation system within the region that accommodates bicycling, walking, driving,
and public transportation. This is to achieve the region's goal of building complete
communities by providing jobs and shopping close to where people live (“Urban Growth
Boundary,” 2006). The General Plan of Phoenix sets the ground rules for these activities,
but again, only in Phoenix proper and it has no real enforcement power as the General
Plan are guidelines to follow and not an agency in itself that enforces them.
Although most individuals, including myself and such notable people such as
former Vice President Al Gore, feel that Portland’s urban growth boundary is a great plan
that is functioning properly and is a perfect model for cities to follow, it does have many
critics. Many critics claim that urban growth boundaries are restricting and bad for
business. One thing that should be pointed out is that Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundary
legislation is not to be static, but can grow as needed. In fact, it has grown many times
since it was established, most recently in 2004 when Metro added 1,956 acres in order to
accommodate industrial companies that needed the space (“Urban Growth Boundary,”
2006). The purpose of urban growth boundaries is to promote higher density and protect
rural areas, but at a controlled space. The legislation in Oregon requires that the
boundaries include enough space for about 20 years worth of growth needs. This allows
for stable and healthy metropolitan areas and thriving downtown centers, which is
acknowledged by developers even though they complain greatly about Metro’s policies
for urban growth (“Myths & Facts,” 1999). This does not restrict necessary growth and
once the boundary is set and no more growth can be accommodated within the boundary,
it can easily be expanded. The argument that it is restricted is quite inaccurate and in my
opinion an uneducated one.
54
One of the most major arguments against urban growth boundaries is that it
makes the region affected become less affordable and limits the people who can purchase
a home (“Myths & Facts,” 1999). They tend to cite the National Association of Home
Builders Housing Affordability Index which was supposed to calculate housing
affordability based on median house prices. The index utilized incomes from the 1990
Census and thus showed that when Portland was on par with the national average in
1992, it moved to 94 and 190 on the list almost immediately. For about five years it
remained as one of the most unaffordable places to live according to the Index (Langdon,
2005). The critics would argue that this was proof of how urban growth boundary
legislation had made this city an expensive place to live, but then in 2003 it suddenly
dropped to 65 on the list. This was due to the NAHB’s Housing Affordability Index was
now using numbers from the 2000 Census meaning that it had been underestimating the
yearly income of most Portlanders. In fact, Housing Policy Debate Journal also
conducted a study in 2002 that found that prices had only increased in the first half of the
1990s, but then leveled out since (Langdon, 2005).
Critics also claim that the limit of land for construction is the cause of increased
home costs. If this were the case, then unlimited land growth from urban sprawl would
lead to an abundant supply of affordable housing. This, in fact, is not true for the simple
reason that in places such as Los Angeles that has unlimited land out west for growth, has
homes that cost about $30 thousand more than in Portland, Oregon that has a limited
growth boundary. Homes in Orange County cost an average of $75 thousand more than
homes in Portland (“Myths & Facts,” 1999). I acknowledge that comparing these
55
different size regions can lead to unfair comparison, but it does support the point that
having unlimited land growth can also lead to increasing housing prices.
Although prices in Portland have increased partly due to the urban growth
boundary methods, it has not entirely been because of the negative aspect of it. Deborah
Howe conducted a study on behalf of The Portland Edge and she concluded that a major
reason for the increase in property prices is because substantial investments had been
made in housing rehabilitation and renovation because of the redevelopment. These
homes tended to be in dire need of rehabilitation and thus were being sold for a below
market price before being refurbished. After this substantial investment began to occur,
these homes became more attractive and began to sell for their true value (Langdon,
2005).
Homeownership increased 1.6% among African Americans and jumped 6.95%
among whites since the boundary was implemented. In fact, every age group except the
55-64 group increased its homeownership rate in metro Portland (Langdon 2005). The
increase in housing is caused more by boom economics than a lack of land to build one.
It can also be attributed to homebuilders building more expensive homes, but even then,
housing and renting remains affordable to most citizens in Portland. Just as in most
major cities, there is still poverty and this means that not all housing and renting units
will be affordable to most citizens (“Myths & Facts,” 1999).
In order to address the potential problem of housing becoming unaffordable in the
Greater Phoenix Area if urban growth boundaries are incorporated as I suggest, the city
should do more to ensure that housing does remain affordable to all. The General Plan
talks about trying to create housing for all citizens, but there is no hard legislation to
56
ensure that there are always available housing units for all. I would suggest that the city
of Phoenix follow the example set by the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that 10% of a community’s
housing stock be considered affordable housing (Sharatin, 2006). In the city of Boston,
Mayor Thomas Menino launched a three-year housing strategy called "Leading the Way"
in the fall of 2000 which is a comprehensive housing strategy to create 2,100 affordable
units. He directed the city departments to sell vacant land for housing development and
increased housing funding by selling surplus city buildings. By 2003, the city had
created 2,217 affordable units and 3,142 at-risk federally subsidized units instead of the
3,100 target which made housing available to the homeless (“Affordable Housing,” n.d.).
The Boston Redevelopment Authority runs the programs proposed by Mayor Menino
and, to ensure the compliance of the Commonwealth’s requirements of 10% affordable
housing units, by using public land and with the help of developers, it gives financing
assistance and relief from regulation (“Affordable Housing. Boston,” n.d). This type of
regulation can be set forth by the State of Arizona and the local communities in the
Metropolitan Phoenix Area.
The main reason that I am advocating the Urban Growth Boundary system for the
Metropolitan Phoenix Area is that this will stop the problem of urban sprawl and thus
will lead to higher densities within the area. The light rail system is currently only being
placed in the area that has the highest bus transit usage because it is the only area
currently dense enough to support the light rail system. The planned future extension
will also reach into high density areas, but any further expansion of the light rail system
57
will require that the region become denser. Density leads to higher usage of public
transportation as traffic congestion increases and parking spaces become less available
due to the increased development. It may seem counter intuitive that I am advocating
increasing densities in the region that could potentially lead to increased traffic
congestion in order to combat that same problem, but as the problem becomes worse,
motorists will find public transportation a more attractive means of transportation for
most of their needs. A denser region also means that public transportation will become a
more attractive option as it means that jobs, housing, entertainment, and shopping will all
be close to transit areas. This close proximity of having everything close to transit can
only be achieved through smart urban planning and the implementation of such
development methods as transit-oriented and mixed-use developments.
The General Plan of Phoenix addresses the utilization of transit-oriented and
mixed-use developments, but in my opinion, not effectively enough. Instead of trying to
promote this kind of development in each of the 28 proposed stations and beyond, it is
mostly advocating the use of the Urban Village (Phoenix Planning Department, 2006).
The Urban Village model, as stated before, is simply a micro-version of urban sprawl. It
is promising that they are thinking about creating communities, but they should think in
smaller terms. They should be planning on creating new neighborhoods near each light
rail stop in order to make it more convenient and attractive to people who live near them.
If each light rail stop, and major bus stop for that matter, only has one ‘attraction’ it will
only be used by a few, but when you create an area that has shopping, housing,
entertainment, open spaces, and employment, then far more people will utilize these
58
transit stops due to the convenience of having everything within walking distance of a
transit stop.
In order for transit-oriented development to be successfully implemented, it has to
be attractive to all types of people and businesses in order to succeed. It also involves
many entities such as state departments of transportation, transit agencies, municipal
government, state and local legislatures, real estate developers, neighborhoods groups,
and other business interests (Mangini, 2005). These groups all have different goals and
definitions of project success or failure, but they should work together to reach a common
goal that benefits all in the long term, and not only think of the short-term. Before these
groups finalize plans for any transit and mixed-use development, they should forge an
agreement on a functional definition of transit-oriented and mixed-use development, and
articulate quantifiable goals and measurable performance standards by considering the
impact of different choices and the outcomes of trade-offs (Autler & Belzer, 2002). The
parties involved should establish plans around all transit stations and make sure to
coordinate all actions with the transit operators, neighborhoods groups, real estate
developers, local governments, and all other key actors.
Methods that can be utilized in Phoenix to improve the chances of successfully
implementing transit-oriented and mixed-use development ideas involve having the
governments, developers, and lenders work equally to attract the tenants and inhabitants.
Due to the higher cost of developing this type of developments, the state and local
governments should implement laws and educate lenders so that they will revise
underwriting practices that are compatible with the goals of transit-oriented and mixed-
use development (Autler & Belzer, 2002). Another method to attract these people to
59
these types of developments is to offer Loan Efficient Mortgages which allow people
who live in these neighborhoods and spend less on transportation, to obtain larger
mortgages than they normally would (Autler & Belzer, 2002).
There are many examples of success and different ways that the community
governments in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area or the State Government can attract
developers to develop such areas around the light rail transit stops and the main bus stops.
It can create legislation that is similar to that passed in the State of Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania State Legislature passed the Transit Revitalization Investment
District Act which authorized public transport agencies to work cooperatively with
counties, local governments, transport authorities, the private sector, and Amtrak to
create and designate Transit Revitalization Investment Districts. This is revolutionary in
that it promotes government interaction with the private sector regarding developments
and encourages transit-oriented and mixed-use development planning in a regional
manor. The Districts should incorporate these types of developments around all major
transit nodes, and eventually create new ones as growth continues. Cities and
communities that are undertaking these types of developments receive priority
consideration for planning and implementation of these projects and it even grants
technical assistance (Mangini, 2005).
The city can also provide other incentives to promote these types of
developments, even if legislation has been passed promoting them. Developers in most
cities, such as Portland and Boston complain about the high cost of developing these
types of developments and of the restrictions placed by city and other governments such
as affordable housing requirements, environmental, and urban growth boundary
60
restrictions. For this reason, the community and state governments in the Phoenix,
Arizona area should provide incentives such as speedy approval of these projects, and
most importantly, tax incentives. Many will argue about tax incentives costing the local
governments loss in revenues from taxes and that the profit of these developments only
goes to a few wealthy individuals and companies and not the community at large, but I
think that these individuals are being short sighted.
In Portland, Oregon, the city passed a transit-oriented development property tax
exemption ordinance that gives developers of these projects a ten year tax break. This is
not that great of a loss to the local governments as after the ten years have passed,
property values will have most likely risen and the gain of new taxes will offset those lost
in less than the ten years the city did not have them (“What Critics Are…,” n.d.). This
should make people realize that tax breaks on these types of projects are more of an
investment for the long-term success of the community than the short-term loss people
argue about.
Although much of the immediate profit from these projects goes to the
developers, the community ultimately benefits as well in the form of increased taxes and
new infrastructure and economic activity. Even if the developers get a lot of the
immediate financial benefits, they are entitled to it because they invested their own
money and risked loosing it. They also saved the tax payers money by building the
infrastructure themselves instead of using taxpayer money to build private homes and
business infrastructure. The community and city governments in the Greater Phoenix
Area should see tax incentives and breaks as an investment that will pay off in the long-
term, which is how most municipalities should think.
61
Transit-oriented and mixed-use developments will not take every car off the road
and relieve traffic congestion completely, but it will reduce traffic congestion
significantly by offering a more balanced set of transportation choices that include
automobiles, public transportation, bicycling, and walking. In the city of Arlington,
Virginia, transit-oriented development has led to 40% to 60% increase in the number of
tenants in these developments that do not utilize automobiles on a daily basis (Autler &
Belzer, 2002). As more and more transit-oriented and mixed-use developments are
developed near the new Valley Metro light rails and major bus stops, then people will
begin to utilize these alternate methods of transportation due to the increased
convenience. This will in turn reduce traffic congestion, which is the goal of these types
of developments, because people in these areas will need their automobiles less and less.
Boston and New York cities are great examples of people utilizing their automobiles less
and less due to the convenience of most everything needed, from jobs, homes,
entertainment, and shopping, being within walking distance of the subway stops.
Although part of what makes this possible in Boston is the lack of land area for new
development, it is promoting more and more of these developments as areas near the
subway stops are being redeveloped. The North Point Project in Cambridge and the
Columbus Center Project in Boston mentioned earlier are great examples of this
functioning.
Ultimately, smart growth with public transportation in mind will lead to a
decrease in traffic congestion in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area for various reasons. By
implementing urban growth restriction legislation, the densities will increase within these
communities making public transportation in the form of light rail and high speed bus
62
services more feasible and successful. As the State of Arizona and the Greater Phoenix
Area governments promote transit-oriented and mixed-use development, then transit
stops will become more of a destination and in turn make public transportation more
convenient and an attractive alternative to traveling by automobile, thus reducing traffic
congestion. These indirect methods make pubic transportation more attractive, thus
ensuring its success and reducing traffic congestion.
Improving Public Transportation
Once the groundwork has been set for the promotion of public transportation
through urban growth barriers and the promotion of transit-oriented and mixed-use
development, then one should actually ensure that the public transit itself is convenient
and attractive enough to entice automobile driver to abandon their cars for at least part of
the time. Valley Metro is on the right path with improvement of their bus service, and
most notably the construction of the METRO light rail system. Although I feel that
Valley Metro has been greatly improving over the years and seems to have a great plan
for the future, it should still do more, in conjunction with the communities in the Phoenix
Metropolitan Area.
The first suggestion that I would make is that Valley Metro become a state owned
agency instead of being a group of individual city transit agencies working under one
name (“Valley Metro (Phoenix),” 2007). I would like to suggest that the state legislature
create an entity much like the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, or MBTA here in the
Greater Boston Area and beyond. The MBTA came into existence on August 3, 1964
after being voted into law in June 1964. It is an Authority that is a political subdivision
63
of the Commonwealth which runs all public transportation in the state (“History: The
Regional...,” n.d.).
If the State of Arizona created an authority much like the MBTA then it could
truly implement smart public transportation planning that would not only affect all the
communities in the Greater Phoenix Area, but all throughout Arizona. The current
system of Valley Metro is inefficient as all the participating municipalities have varying
goals and will inevitably advocate what helps their communities, not the whole region as
a whole. Creating a state authority of Valley Metro will empower it to better plan public
transportation throughout the state and create the most efficient and convenient transit
that will benefit the region as a whole, while still taking into account all individual
community issues. It will also be able to have a say in urban planning and be able to
dictate where new development occurs as it can decide where to expand service to.
One thing that I would suggest be done differently is that the State of Arizona
fund some of the daily operations of such an agency to ensure that service is top quality
to continue attracting riders. The MBTA has been struggling financially due to a change
in the amount the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gives the agency. With debt from
improvement projects, the MBTA has been forced to increase fares. The subway fares
have doubled from $0.85 in 1998 to $1.70 in 2007. This kind of fare increase hurts the
lower income citizens who depend on the MBTA as well as the students who usually
depend on it as well. The State of Arizona should ensure that Valley Metro has enough
funding to infrastructure and system improvements so that it can maintain fares at a
reasonable rate. The State should also ensure that Valley Metro handles its finances
64
properly and that it is actively trying to increase fare ratio as well as advertising revenue
to ensure that it is financially viable.
Once Valley Metro functions as its own entity it should begin making immediate
improvements to the reliability and convenience of it system, most notably its existing
bus service. Although I am not able to determine how efficient and convenient their bus
routes are due to my not living there currently, one of the complaints that I did read about
was that the times of operation were inadequate. I would propose that Valley Metro
extend operating hours to about midnight daily to ensure that all commuters and residents
are able to be out late at night and still have safe alternative to driving when going home.
Boston tested the Night Owl around 2003 for a few years which the extension of service
hours on weekends until 2:30 am.
The Night Owl ran busses along the routes of the subway after the subway closed
at 12:30am and extended the bus routes of the busiest bus routes. It was a great idea,
especially in such a college town, but it was cancelled due to the cost associated with it
and lower than expected turn out. It was a great disappointment to many of the citizens
in Boston, but the MBTA noted that due to huge funding deficits, it could not maintain
the service. Valley Metro could implement something similar, but in a smaller scale to
ensure that it was available, but at a minimal cost. It could even charge a higher fee for
this service as most that use it would rather pay a higher fee for a public transit ride than
pay for a taxi cab. During the dialogue that I held with peers regarding the subject of
public transportation, Benjamin Newlin noted that he was extremely disappointed when
the Night Owl stopped service. He was willing to pay double the current fee as it would
still be cheaper than taking a cab home (2007). Others, like me, had the same feeling.
65
By charging a higher fee, Valley Metro could compensate for the loss in fares due to low
rider ship for this extended service.
Besides making the routes and operating hours more convenient, service should
be more convenient in the form of a steady schedule. Jill Weiner noted that she loved the
Silver Line bus because it is always three minutes apart from one bus to the other (2007).
She noted that a steady schedule was very important because of the fact that she has to
travel in town to many meetings and is reliant on the Silver Line; if the Silver Line
wasn’t as reliable, she would be forced to drive (2007). I think that this is a great
example of how people want to take public transportation, but would rather drive due to
the inconvenience of the transit system. According to another peer present in the
dialogue session, Benjamin Newlin, he would not mind transferring from bus to bus if he
knew they would always be one time (2007).
Andres Bernal and Julie McClure, who both were present in the dialogue, noted
that one of the ideas they really thought could be applied to Phoenix is that of having bus
only lanes in order to make the bus system more convenient and reliable (2007). These
two individuals cited the example of the Silver Line portion that runs along Washington
Street. Although the Silver Line is still subjected to traffic light stops, the specialized
lanes allow the buses to stay close to schedule as they are not stuck in traffic due to rush
hour congestion. Andres Bernal, who is from Bogota, Columbia, noted how it has one of
the best bus rapid transit systems in the world. He mentioned that although it does have
problems such as varying fares due to it being run by separate companies, it is very
convenient and can get almost anybody from one place in the city to another (2007).
66
I agree with the suggestion made by these two friends of mine as this method can
increase the reliability of the Valley Metro bus system. It is common knowledge, which
was reinforced during my dialogue, that a major draw back of bus public transportation is
that it is subjected to the same congestion as traffic and is therefore unreliable to get from
one place to another at a specific time. Phoenix and the surrounding communities have
very wide avenues and boulevards which can easily accommodate Bus Transit only lanes.
Valley metro should work in conjunction with the communities it services to secure these
lanes and have them be enforced by local law enforcement. Although this system could
worsen the traffic congestion problem due to having one lane out of service, the benefits
gained far outweigh the inconvenience. If anything, increased traffic along Rapid Transit
Bus Routes will motivate drivers to take public transportation due to lack of traffic
congestion when utilizing it. If Valley Metro converts all of its bus routes into rapid
transit with designated lanes, then it will become far more attractive than it currently is
and will be a good alternative to the light rail system in areas that are against light rail,
such as Scottsdale.
Another way that Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix and surrounding
communities can work together to make public transportation more convenient is to
reduce the amount of transfers that are needed to get from one point to another. Jill
Weiner stated that one of the major reasons she did not ride the subway in Boston was
because she had to transfer various times to get from Davis Square to her destinations
(2007). Andres Bernal jumped into the conversation and noted that he agreed with her
and that Boston, as well as any other city with a subway or rapid bus system, should have
a ring line that connects most of the other lines at their ending points (2007). He gave as
67
an example the city of Moscow which has a subway line that circles the city and connects
all the other lines that go into the city center. I have also seen examples in Dallas and San
Antonio, Texas; they each have a major highway that encircles the city center so that
drivers do not always have to drive into the city center in order to get to another side of
town.
The reason that I feel this is a great idea and should be implemented in the Greater
Phoenix Area, is that this allows for faster travel times and creates a more convenient
system. To give a local example, a ring (arc in this case) subway line in Boston that
connected all the last stops (or close to) of all subway lines would allow the individual
who wants to travel from Davis Square to Forrest Hills to jump on this ring line and
simply go a few stops directly, instead of going from Davis Square into Downtown
Crossing in Downtown Boston and transfer onto the Orange Line and take it outward
bound to Davis Square. If Valley Metro is able to implement such a system, then it
would allow for fewer transfers and less wasted travel time to get from one place to
another. A downfall that can occur from a ring line is that just like in cities that have ring
highways, the ring becomes a divider between the urban core which is usually inhabited
by minorities and the poor, and the outer section which is the suburbs that are usually
inhabited by Caucasians and the wealthy (“Mixed-use Development,” 2007). By simply
being cognizant of this and working together with the city when making development
plans, this can be avoided.
If any of these suggestions to improve the convenience of the public
transportation system in Metropolitan Phoenix are to be implemented in one shape or
form, Valley metro needs intelligent transportation system tools to ensure smooth
68
operations. An intelligent transportation system includes using such tools as providing
on time traveler information systems, traffic control systems, automation location for
buses, transit vehicle signal preemption, and electronic fare collection (Gayle, 2004).In
order for the intelligent management transportation system tools to be useful and help
maintain convenient on time public transportation, then there should be free and open
communication within all parties involved.
Valley Metro could work with city officials by getting real time traffic
information so that they can use alternate bus routes or to inform pubic transportation
customers of delays and give them options to take alternate routes or other modes of
transportation. Even with designated bus lanes, a bus could break down and clog up the
line. Providing this real time information to customers will allow them to make alternate
plans if necessary instead of waiting for a new bus once the broken one is taken out of the
lane. Having electronic signs at stops and stations will also appeal to many citizens. I
myself was very impressed with the Silver Line system as the stations on the Washington
Street portion alert us when the next bus is expected to arrive. This has proven valuable
in winter when I see that it might take 20 minutes for the next bus to arrive, so I either
take a cab or take shelter for 18 of those minutes instead of waiting outside in the cold.
Citizens in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area might not have to deal with snow conditions,
but they most definitely have to deal with 100+ temperatures in the summer (“Phoenix,
Arizona,” 2007)
The above examples lead me to a very important factor that I feel is imperative to
attract more citizens to ride public transportation in Phoenix and the surrounding
communities; that of making sure that the light rail stations and bus stations are not only
69
clean, but most importantly, protect the rider from the elements. With such high
temperatures encountered on many days of the year, people should be protected from the
searing heat and from the occasional rain that falls. This was touched upon during my
dialogue with my peers; Andreas B., Andrew L., Julie M., Benjamin N., and Jill Weiner
all agreed that the stations had to not only be clean, but protect the rider from the
elements (2007). From what I have seen on my past visits to the city and from the Valley
Metro METRO website, the city is failing in this department. I know that creating
stations/waiting areas that do a good job of protecting the rider are far more costly than
providing a simple bench or bris de soleil, but if public transportation is to truly be an
attractive alternative to the automobile, it should offer the same protection from the
elements that citizens get from their automobiles. There is no reason for citizens in
Phoenix to be left waiting for about 20 minutes in 100+ degree heat in the summers.
This leads me to another subject that relates to protecting the citizens from the
elements as they wait for the light rail or bus. All those who participated in the dialogue
agreed with me that stations need to be attractive. To use Andrew Levine’s words, “they
need to sex them up” (2007). Andrew pointed out that this was a great opportunity to
have stations and stops that are architecturally creative and help liven up the surrounding
areas as well. Benjamin Newlin and Andres Bernal both suggested that architectural
competitions could be held in order to create excitement about public transportation, but
to also allow budding architects to make their mark; create a structure that will be seen by
hundreds of thousands of riders throughout the years (2007). I agree greatly with this
suggestion. Even simple architectural elements make bus stops and stations that much
more attractive and enticing. In Boston, the new bus stops are simple glass enclosures
70
that are very modern, yet traditional looking. Although I think these bus stops are
attractive, they do not protect the rider from the elements; something I can attest to
personally. Stations and bus stops should be made attractive to the eye, but should also
protect from the elements.
The participants of the dialogue, as well as current and former coworkers, also
feel that the look and cleanliness of a station or stop can make a person feel safer than
one that is dirty and dilapidated. The women, such as Julie McClure and Jill Weiner,
stated that they feel safer when a station is clean and architecturally attractive such as
most stops on the Silver Line Waterfront section (2007). Granted that Valley Metro does
not operate a subway and does not need underground stations, the above ground light rail
stations could be covered to not only provide shelter, but also be able to exhibit
architectural creativity that will make riders feel safe, that they are protected from the
elements, and that riding public transportation is an experience in itself, for good reasons
that is.
What I am proposing will no doubt raise the cost of creating these stops, but I feel
that they could be funded by corporate sponsors who would want to be associated with
distinct architecturally transit stops. The stops could potentially only allow
advertisements of those that funded the construction. This could limit the advertising
revenue in the long run, but it is one method that I feel could be utilized in order to offset
the increased cost of building these attractive transit stops. If this model were to be
followed for all transit stops, bus or light rail, then the transit system of Phoenix could
become famous because of this feature, making it a must-try for tourists and citizens
alike. The subway stations in Moscow are known for their spectacular design as was
71
seen above. Increased interest will ultimately lead to increase ridership as well as a
reduction in traffic congestion as more people are attracted to public transportation.
Safety is a major concern as was expressed by people that partook in my dialogue
session and by any passerby that you ask. Transit stops should be safe enough to allow
users to ride the system without having to worry about their safety. Riders, especially
women, do not need to worry about being assaulted while awaiting the bus or the light
rail train to arrive. Good lighting at night as well as police presence in larger areas are
good ways to deter criminals from making public transit dangerous. In Boston, recent
crimes on the subway have made some people nervous to ride certain subway lines and
bus routes. One example that I can point out was when I read the Boston Metro in April
that involved a shooting on a MBTA bus in broad daylight. This greatly unnerved riders,
and prompted MBTA officials to increase transit police presence and to begin to install
video cameras on individual buses to supplement the ones already in subway stations.
Valley Metro should make sure to implement such measures in order to provide a safe
environment and help discourage crime.
Another thing that is necessary to make public transportation in Phoenix more
attractive is for Valley Metro to have a smart advertising campaign. By having a smart
add campaign, Valley Metro can dispel the myth that public transportation is only for the
poor, but instead make riding public transit seem ‘cool.’ Andrew Levine and Jill Weiner
proposed that Valley Metro could create an add campaign in elementary and middle
schools that would not only make Valley Metro seem like the ‘cool’ thing to do, but also
begin creating a new generation that will not see public transportation being only for the
poor, but as an environmentally friendly and cool way to get around Phoenix. The
72
marketing campaign could also involve giving away prizes such as tickets to one of
Phoenix’s professional sports teams, free monthly passes, or even monetary prizes for
random riders. Valley Metro should be smart and proactively promote its transit system
as an attractive, ‘cool,’ alternative to riding your automobile and being stuck in traffic.
As I have mentioned earlier, hearing conversations throughout my life from
strangers and friends, public transportation tends to be seen to be only for the poor, with
the exceptions of New York, Boston, and Washington D.C to name a few. In order to
dispel this myth, Valley Metro should create a marketing campaign that will create a
culture used to riding public transportation. One of Benjamin Newlin’s greatest
complaints was that people who ride public transport here in Boston are rude and have
bad commuter etiquette (2007). Andres Bernal pointed to the etiquette observed by the
public transportation riders in Europe. They always stand to the right side of escalators
to allow those in a rush to climb up without being blocked. They also wait for all people
to get off the subway, train, or bus before boarding, and most importantly do not shove
themselves in when the subway, train, or bus is about to leave (2007). Valley Metro has
the opportunity to use marketing for its new METRO light rail to educate the citizens of
the Phoenix Metropolitan area to observe this etiquette and thus make it a pleasant
experience for all riders. Most of the people that partook of my dialogue stated that bad
etiquette made them only ride the subway if it was absolutely necessary. If the
experience is made pleasant when using public transportation in Phoenix, then more
people will be willing to ride it.
Public transportation in the Greater Phoenix Area needs to be improved greatly in
order to attract the high enough volume necessary to be successful in combating and
73
easing traffic congestion. Valley Metro should become a state agency in order to more
efficiently run the system and make it convenient and easy to use. This authority will
also allow planning for the greater region as a whole without having to worry about
having to appease certain members within the organization as it currently has to.
Utilizing such things as Bus Only Lanes for a rapid transit bus system as well as creating
a ring route to lower travel time will make people want to use public transportation.
Creating attractive, safe stations and stops, and ultimately using a smart advertising
campaign will create a culture that would rather use public transportation than be stuck in
traffic. Only when Valley Metro improves their service using the suggestions I have
made will people truly see public transportation as a viable alternative to their
automobiles.
Other Ideas to Increase Public Transportation Usage
Although the promotion of public transportation in the Greater Phoenix Area
though smart growth and transit-oriented and mixed-use developments and improved
quality and convenience of the transit system itself, other measure should be used in
conjunction with the ones mentioned above. The reason I have grouped these ideas in the
same area is that many of these would not be considered politically viable by the
members of the Arizona State Legislature or the local community members, or they are
simply ideas that could be promoted by the private citizen or individual business. They
range from raising and imposing new taxes, to privatizing roadways or other
infrastructure. Some of the ideas I will express would help ease traffic congestion, but
74
need further study to see how they could be implemented without many negative side
effects.
One of the major tax increases that I would propose would be that of imposing a
gasoline tax in order to make driving less desirable and convenient and thus making
public transportation more attractive. This tax could also provide additional funding for
the expansion and improvement of the existing public transportation and maintenance of
existing roadways. This suggestion runs into several foreseen problems such as rejection
by the local population and the fact that the automobile is almost the only means of
transportation in the Greater Phoenix Area, and most of America for that matter. People
might also point out that taxing gasoline will hurt the poor as they need the automobile to
get to most jobs, thus the increased cost of gasoline will only hurt them financially, while
the rich are not burdened so much by this tax.
One problem that I did not foresee and could continue to occur is that even with
increased gasoline prices, drivers are not reducing the amount they drive. In fact, weekly
gasoline demand in April 2007 increased as much as 1.9% over the same weeks in 2006
even as the average national price of a gallon of gasoline grew from $2.71 to $2.97 by the
end of the month (“Despite cost of gas…,” 2007). This is something that is troubling
because it shows how difficult it will be to discourage drivers from driving and in turn
using public transportation.
Others might also point out the fact the current public transportation system is
inadequate in the region to become a viable alternative to the automobile. Once the
public transportation system is a viable alternative in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area,
then this tax might seem more feasible. Even then, this is a bit of a catch 22 because the
75
tax implementation would increase public transportation usage and reduce traffic
congestion by reducing the amount of automobiles on the roads; but it cannot truly be
increased until the transportation system is truly a viable alternative.
The rise in the cost of gasoline would also ripple throughout the economy by
raising prices of all goods as they require gasoline to be shipped from the suppliers to the
stores. This might be averted by making many businesses exempt from this increase,
though it might be nearly impossible to differentiate from private to business travel as
well as implementing the exclusions. If a method could be discovered, it could alleviate
the problem of causing inflation in the region for goods and services.
Another tax that could be imposed is that of a luxury tax on automobiles
purchased in the region. The Phoenix Metropolitan Area has one of the highest car sales
volumes in the country. Cars are so cheap and necessary to get around that most major
car dealers operate on a seven days a week basis. The newspaper car adds that are
normally only seen on the Sunday newspaper edition of most news papers appears daily
in the Arizona Republic (Gordon, M. 2005). The low cost of the automobile and the
necessity of it lead to a lot of the current traffic congestion problems in the city of
Phoenix. As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, this tax would impact the poor more
severely than the wealthy and would also not be a viable option without a better public
transportation system in place. This too is a catch 22 problem that will require further
study to make it a viable tool to continue fighting traffic congestion by making public
transportation successful in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.
One of the ideas that I feel could best promote the usage of public transportation
in Phoenix is that of charging a commuter fee such as is currently being proposed in New
76
York City by Mayor Bloomberg, and is currently being used in London England. These
fees discourage commuters from using their automobiles and instead use public
transportation, and in return, traffic congestion is greatly reduced. I particularly advocate
the model of London be followed in Phoenix.
On February 17, 2003 London Mayor Ken Livingstone began implementing the
$10 per automobile toll program in London’s Center, affecting 250 thousand vehicles that
enter the city center everyday. The Traffic Management Zone’s 174 exits and entries into
the 40 block by 40 block area are marked with clear signs on the road and signposts.
This eight square mile area consists only of 1.3% of the 617 square miles that compose
greater London. The Traffic Management Zone is only in effect Monday through Friday
from 7am to 6:30pm and excludes residents, government vehicles, disabled citizens,
alternative fuel vehicles, and nine passenger plus vehicles, and tow trucks (“Lessons from
London,” 2003).
The tolling system is considered pretty high tech and cost about $400 million
dollars to implement, but is expected to make up costs fairly soon with the $10 fee
charged per automobile. Vehicles entering the zone have their license plates scanned by
a computerized camera that then deducts the fee from the motorist’s account. Drivers
create accounts over the phone or the web, but if no account is created, motorists have
until midnight of that day to pay for their travel or be charged a fine. Photos taken by the
cameras at all entries are deleted by the end of the day in order to protect privacy of the
motorists (“Lessons from London,” 2003).
About 95 thousand daily payments, equaling about $950 thousand a day, are
collected in addition to the 6,000 penalties issued daily. Penalty fees increase the cost of
77
the toll to $96 for the first 14 days, then $160 if paid in 14-28 days, and ultimately $240
after one month of not being paid. This high costs of fees reduced traffic by 20% within
the first three weeks. The funds raised will be used for transportation and other civil
projects once the programs initial start-up cost is paid for (“Lessons from London,”
2003).
Residents and other critics vehemently opposed the fees, but soon were silenced
as they noticed the success in the reduction of traffic congestion in the Zone, the lack of
negative economic impact, and the ease of its functioning (“Lessons from London,”
2003). The success of the experiment in London has shown that this type of fee structure
could be a success if implemented properly. Even with this success, many of the same
concerns are being brought up by the people of New York City. The most major concern
is that those who need to drive into the city for economic reasons will be hit the hardest
by these fees (Musso, 2007).
Taking into account the concern of the poor and those that need to drive being
negatively impacted by these fees, I would suggest that if Phoenix were to implement this
type of commuting fee, that it make sure that there are exceptions for those that would
severely suffer from the fee and those that need to drive into these areas, such as
residents, emergency vehicles, and delivery trucks. The hours and days of the week
when such fees are charged should resemble those used in London. Once these
exceptions are make to protect the poor and other affected citizens, the city should
enforce the programs with high penalties just like London currently does.
I would suggest that this fee only be implemented in areas within a quarter mile
from the light rail METRO stations once construction is complete, due to the fact that
78
public transportation system is currently not adequate enough to support that system in
many areas in Metropolitan Phoenix. This would be the perfect place to implement such
a commuter fee as drivers would have a convenient alternative to driving. The quarter
mile is the accepted reasonable distance used when determining how far transit-oriented
developments should be expanded while still maintaining the transportation station within
reasonable walking distance for all involved. The fee will provide enough of an incentive
to get motorists to use public transportation without being inconvenienced severely. As
the light rail expands, so should the zones that charge the fee.
As mentioned earlier, many would oppose such a measure claiming that it will
ultimately hurt the poor and those businesses in the fee zone, but it is up to city officials
to educate the public that safeguards are in place to protect those negatively affected by
fees, and to also assure them that by simply using the METRO system the burden of the
commuter fee would be relieved. Local governments should also provide subsidies to
business located in the area so that they ensure that their employees are not negatively
affected by these fees. The fee will be considered unpopular, but it will ultimately
discourage driving in areas that have a convenient public transportation alternative, and it
will reduce traffic congestion such as is seen in London, England.
Another suggestion that I would propose for the cities and communities in the
Greater Phoenix Area is that of the institution of toll roads along with the above
mentioned commuter fee. Although toll roads are quite common in the Northeast, they
are virtually non existent in the West. This reason alone will lead to opposition, but it
will mostly resemble that of the commuter zone fee I propose. The concerns about such
79
fees affecting the poor and the economy are valid, but with proper implementation and
proper safeguards most negative impacts should be minimal.
One way in which Phoenix could implement tolls without incurring the cost of
implementing such a system would be to privatize the portion of the roads that would
become toll roads. As explained above, I would recommend that major roads along
adequate public transportation become toll roads as the cheaper alternative of public
transportation would be available.
Currently, banks and private investment firms are falling in love with public
infrastructure as they are becoming smitten by the rich cash flows that they bring and are
allowed to keep, along with the monopolistic advantages that keep them in business.
Due to state and local leaders scrambling for cash to solve short-term fiscal problems,
they are open to privatizing this infrastructure. It is expected that within the next three
years, about $100 billion worth of infrastructure property will be sold to private entities
(Thorton, 2007).
Private firms lease the infrastructure from government entities for leases
averaging about 100 years, which makes them responsible for all upkeep and
maintenance, but they can keep most fees raised, if not all. Private firms are able to raise
rates without the fear of being penalized at the ballot box and can thus experiment with
ideas such as peak pricing in order to relieve traffic congestion (Thorton, 2007).
This type of fee structure does not come without its negative effects. One of the
most major ones is that of the possibility of fees being raised too quickly. In Chicago, the
Skywalk tolls are most likely to rise from $2 in 1995 to $5 by 2017. This may seem like
a small amount, but if this rate were applied to the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the
80
Delaware River to the Ohio border in the 67 years of existence, the fee would be $553
instead of $22.75. Since these private entities can sell the infrastructure to other private
entities, the quality of service might decrease in an attempt to raise profit margins. In
Atlanta, the water treatment plans were privatized, but they fell into such disrepair that
the city had to reacquire them in order to ensure the safety of the water supply (Thorton,
2007).
One way that the city of Phoenix can avoid the negative effects of creating toll
roads and privatizing them is that they should ensure that deals struck have very clear
language of the responsibilities of the owners and the consequences. The city can require
that a certain percentage of revenue be paid to the city and that the fees rise close to the
rate of inflation to ensure that the private parties do not raise prices severely. The city
should also set the level of quality expected of these companies and fine them when they
are out of compliance or be able to take back control of the infrastructure without having
to pay a penalty to the private entity.
One last unpopular idea that I would suggest the greater metropolitan Phoenix
Area, in particular the areas along the METRO light rail route, enact is that of reducing
the amount of on street parking space available. This will create a shortage that will
discourage individuals from driving their private automobiles and instead use public
transportation. This will also lead to parking garages and parking lots to charge a high
rate to park due to the high demand. The high cost of paying for parking, along with the
shortage of on street parking, will most definitely discourage a great number of drivers
from using their automobiles when public transportation is available. This may anger
81
many individuals as it will create issues for those who continue to use their automobiles,
but it will make them think twice about driving to these areas.
A great example that I would like to mention is one time when a coworker and
myself were going to have dinner in downtown Boston. We work in Dorchester and he
drives his automobile to work every day from Brighton as he needs the automobile for
work related business. On this particular day, he chose to give me a ride home, and then
drove to Brighton to drop off his automobile and take the subway into town. I asked him
why he was doing that, and he said because it was easier to take the T than to drive into
downtown Boston. He cited the lack of parking spaces and the fact that parking garages
charged an exorbitant amount to park his automobile in downtown. This showed me the
power of making the driving a private automobile inconvenient. The inconvenience
perceived of using an automobile will promote the usage of public transportation; the
same thing I am suggesting that the municipalities in the Greater Phoenix Area enact.
I acknowledge that these suggestions might be viewed as too extreme by some, if
not all readers, but they should seriously be considered for various reasons. As the
population of Metropolitan Phoenix increases, so will traffic congestion. In order to help
alleviate this, public transportation should become a more attractive alternative to
driving, and by imposing such fees to motorists, they will be more inclined to utilize
public transportation. The responsibility lies with Valley Metro to ensure that the public
transportation system is adequate enough to be a viable alternative. The obligation also
lies with the Federal, State, and Local Municipality governments to ensure that these fees
and taxes are high enough to deter the high usage of automobiles, but to also protect the
poor and businesses most affected by these fees. The municipalities should figure out a
82
way to make sure that the negative side effects of these fees are outweighed by the
benefits.
Other Suggestions
The following suggestions are suggestions that require some government
interference, but can mostly be applied by the private sector. The government can mostly
provide incentives in the forms of tax breaks to businesses and individuals that promote
the usage of public transportation.
One of the major suggestions that I would make is that car insurance companies
provide discounted coverage rates to individuals who use public transportation. They
could require that the car owner produce a year’s worth of public transportation monthly
passes in order to receive the discounted rate. The drivers should receive the discounted
rate because it means that these drivers are less often on the road and in turn are less
likely to in accidents. This is currently done in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
it is a great way to entice motorist to use public transportation even if they could drive to
work daily. This type of discount promotes the usage of public transportation during the
week to commute to work and only utilizing the automobile during weekends, though
individuals at times still utilize public transportation during weekends.
Employers could offer subsidies or discounts on public transportation monthly
passes. The local and/or state governments could offer tax breaks to companies that
provide such a service. My past two employers offered varying kinds of this benefit.
One employer offered as an employee benefit a $35 subsidy for MBTA monthly passes.
The second employer offered no subsidy, but did take out the cost of an MBTA monthly
83
pass pre-tax so that our income would be reduced and we paid less federal and state
taxes. This was such a great hit that people who owned automobiles almost always
purchased the MBTA monthly pass in order to receive this tax benefit and to also receive
the discounted insurance rate.
Lastly, local employers could provide other types of transportation that may not
promote public transportation usage, but do offer a chance to reduce traffic congestion.
These employers could provide company transportation in the form of shuttle buses to
pick up employees at either a designated area or throughout a designated route. This
would reduce the number of automobiles on the road as well as reduce the cost of
transportation to its employees. Employers who perform this type of service for their
employees should receive tax incentives from the state and local government in order to
promote this type of service and to reduce the cost impact of the employer.
As was just seen, not all ideas have to be grandiose or heavily involving the local,
state, and federal governments. Although I do suggest that the governments offer tax
incentives to local business that offer the above mentioned services, these are things that
individual employers and companies could enact or that the employees could lobby their
employers to provide. This type of small action could have a great impact in changing
the views that citizens have of using public transportation as well as add up to reduce
traffic congestion a good amount. I include these ideas to show that even the individual
citizen can do their part to promote public transportation and to reduce the dependence on
the automobile.
84
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION, REFLECTIONS, AND AN EYE TOWARDS THE FUTURE
Ultimately, the preceding was my interpretation of the complexity of the problem
of traffic congestion as a result of urban sprawl and how public transportation can be
made a success and help ease traffic congestion. The solutions I propose are derived
from my understanding of the problem and using the skill I acquired while in the Critical
and Creative Thinking Program. You may be asking yourself, “Why should I listen to
David? He’s not an expert on urban planning or public transportation policy.” To this I
say, DON’T! This may be counter intuitive in that my synthesis project is utilizing what
I have learned to solve a problem of my choosing, but I understand that this is my
opinion; the opinion of an observer with minimal experience in urban planning and
public transportation policy.
I want to point out that I understand the fact that the United States covers a huge
amount of land that ultimately requires us to use automobiles to get around. As I have
shown, many cities do not have a functional public transportation system that would
allow everybody to abandon their cars. In fact, even New York City residents own cars,
even though they primarily depend on public transportation for their transportation needs.
The car is not only a necessity, but part of the American psyche and it will ultimately be
generations before most Americans can accept public transportation as a viable
alternative to the automobile. It will actually be generations before most cities can
provide a public transportation system that will rival the automobile.
85
I am not advocating the abolishment of the automobile in any way, but I am
advocating making public transportation a viable alternative that will reduce Americans’
dependence on the automobile and thus help ease traffic congestion. I am advocating
smart growth and increasing density so that Americans are no longer forced to depend on
the automobile, but will ultimately have another choice; a choice that is better for the
environment.
What I have tried to achieve with this synthesis project has been to not only
educate myself on a major issue affecting us, but to educate the reader on the problem. I
have given you facts and given you the opinions of my proposed solutions using these
facts that I gathered. There is so much more information available out there that I was
not able to incorporate into this project, that you should do your own research to either
reach my conclusions, or reach one that is completely different from the ones that I have
reached. This subject matter affects all Americans and it is up to each one to educate
themselves on the matter and to try to make a difference by educating others, joining
organizations that feel the same way you do, or to write to your representatives at all
levels of government and making them aware of your concerns.
I chose Metropolitan Phoenix because of the fact that I will be relocating there in
2009, but every other city in America has its own unique problems and possible
solutions. The ones I may have come up with could possibly apply to your home town,
they may not. My aim was to educate myself on this subject and come to my own
conclusions, but it is up to each and every one of you to educate yourselves and come to
your own conclusions. My synthesis hopefully will have made you aware of the problem
and aware of possible solutions. It is ultimately up to you to do your own part if you are
86
as concerned about the problems of urban sprawl and traffic congestion; my synthesis is
only the start of your journey, as it is of mine.
As my time in the Critical and Creative Thinking Masters Program come to an
end, I feel that it is very important to look back and reflect on what I have accomplished,
learned, and come to realize. My synthesis project allowed me to investigate something
very important to me by using all that I have learned and allowed me to reflect on the past
two years. I am not the same person I was coming into the program and that is great in
my opinion. In the following paragraphs I will reflect on the process of working on my
synthesis project as well as reflect on the program as a whole. I feel it is also important
to think towards the future and how I will use the synthesis project and what I have
learned to realize my goals and all my future endeavors.
Reflection on Synthesis Project
In regards to the project, what I learned the most was that trying to increase public
transportation was way more involved than simply building the infrastructure and telling
people that it was there. I was aware that government, urban planning and development,
and the public were interlocked in making public transportation a success or a failure, but
I never imagined it was so deeply intertwined. I began the project with an idea of trying
to promote public transportation and thought simply building transit-oriented
development and all would be solved; boy was I wrong.
As I began my research and brain storming, it became clear that more and more
factors were involved in trying to promote public transportation. Americans developed a
culture where the automobile was the way of life. Urban planning and local, state, and
87
federal laws led to urban sprawl which in turn promoted more and more usage of the
automobile. I realized that simply building a great transportation system and developing
transit-oriented development would not be the solution to the environmental or traffic
congestion problems that developed due to urban sprawl and American’s view that
owning a car was a sign of freedom. As I came across research I realized that there was
more and more to this problem that needed to be considered in order to make public
transportation a success.
As I turned in drafts and wrote and wrote, it became clear that I was actually
tacking a very large problem that could not be easily done. I soon realized that I needed
to understand the reasons for the failures of public transportation and why the car became
the main means of transportation in this country. Only after I understood the complexity
of the problem, could I attempt to find a solution that would allow the public
transportation system become a success in the city of Phoenix.
Doing the research for this project was one of the hardest things that I had ever
done. I would find something that I thought would be helpful only to realize that it was
not. I often ran into the problem that I kept finding way to much information that was
educational to me, but would ultimately bore my reader. This project was to be a
synthesis of the skills I learned in the CCT Program and utilizing them to solve a
problem. It was extremely difficult to strike a balance where I could educate my reader
and allow them to understand the complexity, without boring them to death. It was a
great experience having this problem because I had to use my creative and critical
thinking skills to find a solution.
88
As the research was on going, I decided that I should ask people who ride the
public transportation system in Boston what they think of public transportation in
general. I opted to hold a dialogue with peers from various backgrounds and careers.
This dialogue became one of the most fun and interesting aspects of my project. I was
not only able to use what I learned in my dialogue, critical, and creative thinking courses,
but I was able to understand how people who actually ride it feel first hand, not read what
experts thought. I felt this was one of the most insightful things that I learned because
ultimately, it is this type of person that will need convincing to leave their vehicles and
start using public transportation.
I gained a lot of insight from my research, my dialogue, and my own thought
process, but I came to the realization that ideas had to be practical. The ideas not only
had to be practical, but they had to honestly address the fact that the city of Phoenix does
not have the best transportation system in the US and that at the moment, the most
convenient form of transport is the automobile. I had a great challenge ahead of me as I
realized some of the ideas would not necessarily be a success in this city, or that in fact
could not so readily be implemented. This challenge was discouraging at times, but
allowed me to truly think critically of my solutions and to be realistic.
One thing that became apparent almost immediately was that there was an
overwhelming amount of information regarding the subject matter covered in this
synthesis project. In fact, I found so much information at times that I would almost panic
trying to incorporate it all into this project. Ultimately, I had to make critical decisions
on what to include and what to exclude from the project considering the time constraints.
One factor that I decided to exclude, but that I feel is definitely very important is of how
89
many of my suggestions will be paid for. Many of the suggestions I make involve tax
breaks, tax incentives, and increased costs which would lead for many to see the raising
of taxes across the board as being the only solution. I greatly understand that this is not a
viable solution as most citizens oppose tax increases and the poor are most negatively
impacted by tax increases. It is my goal to continue to research the subject and to find
new and creative ways on funding the projects that I propose. I would also suggest that
you, the reader, think about this important aspect as you decide to take action and
hopefully promote what I have suggested.
Ultimately, the process of doing my research using the skill that I learned through
my two years in the Critical and Creative Thinking Masters Program was a challenging
and rewarding project. I feel that I have accomplished something that I could have not
honestly done before. I had been capable of writing a research paper and making
inferences, but for the first time, I challenged my thought process, I challenged my
thought process, and I made sure that I took in all points of view. I have come up with a
synthesis project that has prepared me for my future goals of becoming a real estate
developer who promotes public transportation. I know what is involved in making public
transportation a success and as I plan my career ahead, I know what connections to make
and what I need to learn. I have learned a great deal about the city of Phoenix, my future
home. Any smart individual who wants to begin a business should know the field inside
and out and know all the factors that can make their business a success or a failure,
something I have gained from this synthesis project.
90
Reflection on the Critical and Creative Thinking Program
As stated before, the Critical and Creative Thinking Program has had a great
impact on my life; personally and career wise. I came into the certificate program trying
to improve my architectural design skills and to help delay my undergrad school loan
payments, but soon learned that it was much more than I thought it would be. I soon
decided to fully embrace the program and joined the Critical and Creative Thinking
Masters Program.
The program was very unconventional and nothing like I was used to in my
undergraduate career. This fact made me nervous at first and quite frankly skeptical. At
the end of my first semester, I had become intrigued, but not yet fully convinced. The
Creative Thinking course and the Seminar on Humor helped me loosen up a bit. These
courses planted the seed of my eventual leaving the architectural world. My Philosophy
course made me become more contemplative about things that I normally wouldn’t be on
and to accept others' points of view.
My second semester was the point that made me embrace the CCT Program and
decide to join the Masters Program. My Cognitive Psychology course allowed me to see
how people’s minds worked and most importantly taught me about schemas and how this
explained peoples’ preconceptions. My Dialogue Processes course opened my eyes to a
new way of communicating with people. It allowed me to truly listen to others for the
first time and to be open to differing opinions by not allowing myself to judge but instead
listen to what was being said. This class opened a whole new way of brainstorming and
simply speaking with people. It has allowed me to create great ‘containers’ when having
a dialogue with people.
91
These classes were great, but the one class that I feel truly changed my way of
thinking and behavior was that of Critical Thinking. This course challenged me to learn
to question my schemas and my personal beliefs. It wasn’t that I began to question who I
was, but more to question why I believed certain things and if I really did believe them or
if I simply thought I believed them because I felt that was what was expected from me.
This Critical Thinking course also helped me become an individual who can now
honestly think critically about decision regarding my personal and professional life. I
now take a step back and think things over instead of letting my emotions run my
decisions at times. I now attempt to look at the other person’s point of view. I find
myself swallowing my pride at times and either accepting that I am incorrect and another
person is correct, or realizing that my idea is not as good as someone else. I used to be
the type of person who argued with someone if they did not see my point of view; I was
the type of person who was never wrong, but this class taught me to think critically about
my ideas and decisions. I used to also be the type of individual who was very high strung
and always stressing out when something went wrong, but thinking critically has allowed
me to relax by taking a step back and analyzing the situation, realizing that it is pointless
to worry about things that I cannot control. I am not a completely new person by any
means, but I have begun to be critical of my thoughts and decisions which is greatly
helping me in my personal and professional life.
My second year began with my taking the Practicum course as well as my
Mathematics Teaching Methods course. The Practicum course was difficult in that it was
run in a manner than I am not used to; it was very structured. I was at first frustrated and
disappointed, but the methods and techniques I learned on writing and thinking about my
92
writing helped me greatly with this synthesis project. I was given the tools to take a
different approach to how I write and think about writing; this will also be helpful as I
proceed to go back to school to earn my MBA in the near future. My mathematics course
helped me no longer dread mathematics and learn that there are many ways to teach it
that make it interesting, fun, and easier to learn. I may not be going into education, but
this course taught me that I can use various ways to make my learning fun and
interesting.
The semester that has come to an end included my courses in Action Research
and of course, my synthesis. This semester has been quite stressful and difficult, but it
has enabled me to learn how to do action research and to synthesize the things that I have
learned from school, and in life I feel. It has been a tough semester that was worth the
work.
Looking back at my two years in the Critical and Creative Thinking Masters
Program has allowed me to realize how much I have grown as an individual and
academically. I have learned things I never thought I would learn and have come to love
a program I once doubted. I have made great friends along the way and met many
interesting individuals with different backgrounds and ideas. It wasn’t always easy or
fun, but the CCT program has inspired me to learn, to question, and to believe in myself.
I move forward now with an eye and plan for the future; something I truly did not have
before. The reason for this is that I am now asking the correct and tough questions that I
never thought to ask myself.
93
A Look Towards the Future
Although I plan to utilize what I learned from my synthesis to aid me in becoming
a real estate developer that promotes public transportation, it will be quite a while before
I am able to pursue that career. I intend to continue learning about real estate
development through personal research and inquiry, as well as following the progress
being made in public transportation in the Greater Phoenix area. I selected this synthesis
project to help me become more attuned to the problem and its complexity, and that will
now allow me to be cognizant of what efforts are being made to solve it, and their
success. The knowledge gained from this project will also allow me to tailor my future
endeavors in order to become a real estate developer that promotes the usage of public
transportation
Upon my relocation to the Greater Phoenix area in a few years, I will continue to
work in the construction field in order to help me greater understand construction and
building methods; knowledge that will make me an attractive candidate to large real
estate developer companies. I will also enroll in an MBA program at Arizona State
University to give me the other tools necessary to not only be an even more attractive
candidate to real estate developer companies, but give me the tools to be able to run my
own business. It is at this time that I will actively begin to find employment in a real
estate development firm in order to educate myself about the field, gain experience, and
network. During this time, I will be actively saving up capital in order to begin my own
real estate development firm. I will begin slowly by developing homes near transit areas
and eventually, when my company is large enough to develop large buildings, I will
94
begin to seek support from the City of Phoenix to create transit-oriented developments
that will further promote the usage of public transportation.
On a personal level, I will continue to use the tools that I was able to receive from
the Critical and Creative Thinking Program to help me improve as an individual. I feel
that this program has greatly helped me in my attempt to become what I would consider a
better person. I plan on continuing on improving my intrapersonal skills by not rushing
into actions based upon my feelings and instead using critical thinking to analyze both
point of views and coming to an understanding of both in order to reach a decision of
action. By fostering this kind of improvement, it will not only help me on my business
dealings, but also on my interactions between my loved ones and my friends. I will
continue to develop my ability to overcome preconceptions and mental blocks that make
me self-conscious and not be a creative individual in my professional and personal life.
This journey that I have just been through this past semester and past two years
has had a tremendous impact on my life. I have gone from simply picking the CCT
Certificate Program because it sounded interesting, to fully embracing the CCT ideals
and joining the CCT Masters program. I went from an individual trying to improve his
design skills and working at an architecture firm, to becoming an individual who decided
to pursue his dream of becoming a real estate developer who is an advocate for public
transportation, by changing careers and putting me on the path to achieving that dream.
It was not only a journey of academic discovery, but most importantly, it was a journey
of self discovery and self improvement. Ultimately, I have come to a conclusion that this
journey through the CCT Program may be over, but the true life journey has just begun. I
leave the University of Massachusetts a person who is striving to reach his dreams and
95
grow as an individual, having been given the tools and confidence by the Critical and
Creative Thinking Masters Program. Thank You.
96
APPENDICES
Appendix A
This is a map of the Metropolitan Phoenix area.
Appendix B
This graphic shows how the City of Phoenix is sectioned off into areas that have specific
goals due to the General Plan.
Appendix C
This is a map of the planned route of the METRO light rail. It currently is under
construction.
Appendix D
This map shows the METRO light rail route currently under construction and future
proposed extensions under study.
99
APPENDIX C
METRO LIGHT RAIL PLANNED ROUTE
http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Downloads/Maps/maps/METRO-starter-line.pdf
100
APPENDIX D
METRO LIGHT RAIL FUTURE EXTENSIONS
http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Downloads/Maps/maps/Corridor-Extentions-NW.jpg
101
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Altshuler, A., Morril, W., Wolman, H., and Mitchell, F. (1999) Governance and
Opportunity: Metropolitan America. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Arapkiles, T. et al. (1998). Stop Sprawl: Sprawl – The Dark Side of the American
Dream. Sierra Club Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/report.asp
Associated Press. (2007, May 15) $%^!! Miami Drivers Have the Worst Road Rage:
City earns not-so-distinguished distinction for second year in a row. MSNBC.Com. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18665115/
Associated Press. (2007, May 16). Despite Cost of Gas, Motorists Still Driving: Motorists are angry, but as cost flirts – or passes - $4 they’re still driving. MSNBC.Com. Retrieved May 16, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18682561/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Autler, G. & Belzer, D. (2002, Fall). Countering sprawl with transit-oriented
development. Issues in Science and Technology.
Barnett, J. (2001) Planning for a New Century: The Regional Agenda. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Bunting, M. (2003) Making Public Transportation Work. Montreal, Canada:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Burchell R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., and Mukherji, S. (2005) Sprawl Costs:
Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Burke, J. & Ewan, J. & Underhill, M. (2004, December). Designing the urban preserve boundary: The City of Phoenix learns valuable lessons on how to develop and provide access to open lands in urban areas. [Electronic Version] Parks & Recreation.
Calthorpe, P and Fulton, W. (2001) Regional City: New Urbanism and the End of
Sprawl. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Citro, C. F. and Norwood, J. L. (1997) The Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
Priorities for the Future. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Downs, A. (2003). Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic
Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
102
Fehr-Snyder, K. (2006, December 18). Phoenix plans to avoid further freeway goofs. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1218rightofway1218.html
Gayle, S. B. (2004, December). Looking at Transportation Planning with an Operations Perspective. Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Journal.
Gordon, M. (2005, March 1). A Hot Time in Phoenix. [Electronic Version] Ward’s
Dealer Business.
Gordon, P. (2006, June 29). Designing Downtown: The Phoenix Urban Forum Project. Office of the Mayor – Phil Gordon at the City of Phoenix, Arizona
Municipal Website. Accessed April 10, 2007, from http://www.mayorgordon.com/news/view.cfm?id-1815009694
Gordon, P. & Richardson, H.W. (2000, Spring). Defending Urban Sprawl. [Electronic Version] Public Interests
Johnson, B. (2006, April 21). Critic of Transit-oriented Development says light-rail systems are ineffective. St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian.
Katz, B. and Puentes, R. (2005) Taking the High Road: A Metropolitan Agenda for
Transportation Reform. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Kolson, K. (2002). Big Plans: The Allure and Folly of Urban Design. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Labbe, M and Partriksson, M. (2002). Transportation Planning: State of the Art. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Langdon, P. (2005, March). Urban Growth boundary Did Not Make Portland Unaffordable. [Electronic Version} New Urban News.
Litman, T. (2007, January 8) Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism. Victoria Transport
Policy Institute.
Madsen, P and Plunz R. (2001) The Urban Lifeworld: Formation, Perception,
Representation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mangini, V. J. (2005, September). Smart Growth - It Takes a Transit Village: Transit-oriented Development has become a popular means of increasing public transit use while promoting economic development. Here’s how two states with contrasting policies approach TOD. [Electronic Version] Railway Age.
103
Menzies, T. R. et al (2001) Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe,
Canada, and the United States – Special Report 257. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Morris, D.E. (2005). It’s a Sprawl World After All: The Human Cost of Unplanned
Growth and Visions for A Better Future. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Musso, A. (2007, May 5). Commuter Fee Plan Will Hurt NYC Economy.
[Electronic Version] Poughkeepsie Journal.
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board Staff (2001) Contracting
for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and
Experience – Special Report 258. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nelson, D. & Niles, J. (1999, April 24-28) Measuring the Success of Transit-
Oriented Development – Retail Market Dynamics and Other Key Determinants. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.globaltelematics.com/apa99.htm
Phoenix Planning Department (2006, January 1). City of Phoenix General Plan: A Vision for the Future - Map. City of Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpmaps.html
Phoenix Planning Department (2006, January 1). City of Phoenix General Plan: A Vision for the Future - Poster. City of Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpmaps.html
Phoenix Planning Department. (2007, February 15). Energy & Green Buildings. Phoenix Environmental Sustainability Program Page at City of Phoenix Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/energy.pdf
Phoenix Planning Department. (2007, February 15). Land Use. Phoenix
Environmental Sustainability Program Page at City of Phoenix, Arizona
Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/landuse.pdf
Phoenix Planning Department (2007, April 05). Phoenix General Plan. City of
Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpindex.html
Phoenix Planning Department. (2007, February 15). Recycling & Pollution Prevention. Phoenix Environmental Sustainability Program Page at City of
Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/recycle.pdf
104
Phoenix Planning Department. (2007, February 15). Transportation & Air Quality. Phoenix Environmental Sustainability Program Page at City of Phoenix, Arizona
Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/transair.pdf
Phoenix Planning Department. (2007, February 15). Water. Phoenix Environmental
Sustainability Program Page at City of Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/water.pdf
Price, M. (2006, April 17). ASU researcher expects challenges as Phoenix continues to grow. ASU Insight. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http:/www.asu.edu/news/stories/200604/20060417_growth.htm
Thornton, E. (2007, April 30). Highway privatizations seen as roads to riches: Investors clamor to take over America’s highways, bridges, and airports. Business Week Online through MSNBC.com. Retrieved April 30, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18396534/print/1/displaymode/1098
Shartin, Emily. (2006, January 19) Few gains in low-cost housing. [Electronic Version] The Boston Globe.
Sunnucks, M. (2004, October 19). Light rail, Prop. 400 critics hope to get boost
from Flake, Franks. The Business Journal of Phoenix. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/10/18/daily24.html
Unknown. (n.d.) Affordable Housing. Official Website of the City of Boston. Retrieved May 6, 2007 from http://www.cityofboston.gov/priorities/housing.asp
Unknown. (2006). About Us. Center for Transportation Excellence Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.cfte.org/about.asp
Unknown. (n.d.) Affordable Housing. Boston Redevelopment Authority Website. Retrieved May 6, 2007 from http://www.cityofboton.gov/bra/affordablehousing/AH.asp
Unknown. (2006a) Future Extensions. Valley Metro Official Website. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Future_Extensions/index.htm
Unknown. (n.d.). History: A Brief History of Public Transportation in Metro
Phoenix. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://www.azrail.org/trains/transit/transit-history/
Unknown. (n.d.) History: The Regional System and the MBTA. MBTA Official Website. Retrieved on May 6, 2007, from http://mbta.com/about_the_mbta/history/?id=968
105
Unknown. (2006) History and Local Funding. Valley Metro Official Website.
Retrieved April 7, 2007 from http://www.valleymetro.org/Valley_Metro/History_and_Local_Funding/index.htm
Unknown. (n.d.) Inside Sierra Club. Sierra Club Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/inside/
Unknown. (2003, Winter) Lessons from London: Early Success for London’s Big
Pricing Experiment. Transportation Alternatives Official Website. Retrieved on May 6, 2007, from http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/031Winter/17london.html
Unknown. (2007, March 28). Light Rail. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
Unknown. (n.d.) METRO Corridor Extensions NW Map. Valley Metro Website. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from, http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Downloads/Maps/maps/Corridor-Extentions-NW.jpg
Unknown. (n.d.) METRO Starter Segments. Valley Metro Website. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from, http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Downloads/Maps/maps/METRO-starter-line.pdf
Unknown. (n.d.) Metropolitan Phoenix Map. Rein & Grossoehme Website. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from, http://www.high-yield.com/map_phx.htm
Unknown. (2006, November 7). Mixed-use Development. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
Unknown. (1999, November). Myths & Facts About Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries. 1000 Friends of Oregon Website. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from http://www.friends.org/resources/myths.html
Unknown. (n.d.) Myths and Fact Soundbites. Sprawl Watch Website. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from, http://www.sprawlwatch.org/soundbites.html
Unknown. (2006, November 29). New Urbanism. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
Unknown. (2007, March 31). Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix%2C_Arizona
106
Unknown. (2006, December 13). Phoenix Environmental Sustainability Program.
City of Phoenix, Arizona Municipal Website. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://phoenix.gov/sustainability/blueprint.html
Unknown. (n.d.) Population Growth and Suburban Sprawl: A Complex Relationship. Sierra Club Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/SprawlPop_2003.pdf
Unknown. (2007, March 26). Public Transport. Retrieved March 31st, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Transportation
Unknown. (2007, March 25). Public Transportation. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transportation
Unknown. (n.d.). Stop Sprawl: Transportation Issues. Sierra Club Website.
Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transportation/
Unknown. (n.d). Stop Sprawl: What Can You Do About Sprawl? Sierra Club
Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/get_invovled/
Unknown. (n.d.). Trade and Sprawl: How Global Trade Rules Could Increase Sprawl. Sierra Club Website. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/sprawl_trade.pdf
Unknown. (2002, October 25). Traffic: Traffic Time Index. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.ersys.com/usa/04/0455000/traffic.htm
Unknown. (2007, March 3). Traffic Congestion. Wikipedia. Retrieved March 4, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion
Unknown. (n.d.) Transit Benefits. Center for Transportation Excellence. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from, http://www.cfte.org/trends/benefits.asp
Unknown. (n.d.) Transit Profile: The Denver area Light Rail System. Center for
Transportation Excellence. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from, http://www.cfte.org/success/success_denver.pdf
Unknown. (n.d.) Transit Profile: The Portland are MAX light rail system. Center
for Transportation Excellence. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from, http://www.cfte.org/success/success_portland.pdf
Unknown. (2007, February 7). Transit-oriented Development. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_oriented_development
107
Unknown. (2006, March 17). Transit-Oriented Development & Light Rail. Phoenix
Government Website. Retrieved April 6, 2007, from http://www.phoenix.gov/ECONDEV/prjstrn.html
Unknown. (2006, January 28). Urban Growth Boundary. Metro Region Website. Retrieved April 14, 2007 from, http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleID=277
Unknown. (2007, Mach 27). Valley Metro (Phoenix). Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Metro_%28Phoenix%29
Unknown. (n.d.) What the Critics Are Saying. Center for Transportation
Excellence. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from, http://www.cfte.org/critics/what.asp
Weiner, E. (1999). Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: An
Historical Overview. Westport, CT.: Praeger.